1920-04-19

NEW MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House lias received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election and return of Fernand Rinfret, Esq., for the .Electoral District of St. James.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Fernand Rinfret, Esq., member for the Electoral District of St. James, introduced by Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. Podolphe Lemieux.


[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir GfiORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister): Might I be allowed to draw the attention of the House to a fact, and to make a suggestion? Thursday next is the anniversary of the Battle of St. Julien, and I propose with the assent of the House to ask that after prayers have been read next Thursday by Mr. Speaker, the members ,of this 'Chamber stand for one or two minutes in silent prayer in commemoration 87J
of that battle, in sacred memory of those ,who died for their country and in honour of the bravery and heroism of the Canadian troops who upheld the honour of our country and merited for Canada the admiration and the respect of the whole world.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: Hon. members on this side of the House will be glad to avail themselves of the privilege mentioned by the .Acting Prime Minister of commemorating this anniversary in the fitting manner which he has suggested.



REPORTS AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Fifteenth report of the Board of Railway Commissioners for the nine months ending; December 31, 1919.-Hon. Mr. Reid.
Statement of the Receipts and Expenditures of the National Battlefields Commission for the period ending 31st March, 1920. -Sir Henry Drayton.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 48, (from the Senate) to amend the Criminal Code so as to provide for the revision of excessive or inadequate punishments.-Mr. Tweedie.
Bill -No. 57, (from the Senate), to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Bill No. 59 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Henry Shemilt.-Mr. Smith.
. Bill No. 60, (from the Senate), for the relief of John Bertram Hall.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 61 (from the Senate), for the relief of Nell Louise Dennis.-Mr. Smith.
. Bill No. 62, (from the Senate), for the relief of Harry Ernest Wright.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 63. (from the Senate), for the relief of Henri Delphe Parizeau.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 64, (from the Senate), for the relief of Gele Karafel.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 65, (from the Senate), for the relief of William George Uren.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 66, (from the Senate), for the relief of Meryl Adams.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Stage Direction]
*iMr. CASGRAIN:
1.	Is there any Canadian of French origin in the Daw Branch Department?
2.	If not, why?
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: No answer can be given to this question as it is framed, because it is not known what branch is referred to. I think the question had better be dropped, and the hon. member can put a more definite question on the Order Paper.
Question dropped.


EMBARGO ON NEWSPRINT EXPORTATION.
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	When and why was an embargo placed upon the exportation of newsprint paper manufactured by some of the mills of Canada?
2.	Has the Government received any communication written or oral from the State Department at Washington or from the Foreign Office in London in regard thereto?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: This question
was answered on April 12, 1920.
Question dropped.


PENSIONERS IN CHARLEVOIX-MONTMOR-ENCY COUNTY.
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many residents of the County of Charlevoix-Montmorency are receiving pensions and allowances from the Government 1
2.	What are the names, place of residence and respective amounts received by said persons?


George Green Foster: An answer has already been given to a similar question. This is a matter for the Pensions Committee. The figures and statistics will be given in their report.
Question dropped.


PORT ARTHUR AND FORT WILLIAM-GOVERNMENT ELEVATORS.
Mr. MOLLOY:: 1.	Is the Government aware of the general dissatisfaction of the shippers of grain from the West with the Government terminal weights at Port Arthur and Fort William?
2.	If so, what measures, if any, have been taken to investigate and remedy same?
3.	If any investigations have been held by the Board of Grain Commissioners or other commission, has their report been received, and [DOT]what has been, if any, their recommendation?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The Government is not aware of any general dissatisfaction with regard to the weights given by the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur.
2.	Individual complaints are received from time to time, which in every case are investigated. As a protection in the case of errors in weighing, the depth of grain In each car on arrival at the elevator is recorded, and the cubical contents estimated accordingly, which furnishes.a basis against which the actual weight can be

checked. The Board of Grain Commissioners has on file a statement from one of the largest shippers of grain from Western Canada to the Head of the Lakes, that the outturns of their cars at terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur are 100 per cent satisfactory.
3.	The only thing in the nature of a general complaint received by the Board of Grain Commissioners is that raised by the Order of Grain Buyers; which was fully investigated by the board in January last, and their full report on which is now in the hands of the Government. While this complaint touched to some extent on the matter of weights at the Head of the Lakes, it was mainly a question of shortage bonds as applied to country buyers that furnished the chief grounds for complaint.


VIMY BATTLEFIELD.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is it true that the French Government has offered, as a gift, the battlefield of Vimy to the Canadian Government?
2.	If so, has the Canadian Government accepted?
3.	If so, does the Canadian Government intend to erect there a momument to commemorate the military exploits of the Canadian Army?
4.	Is the Government aware that certain persons intend to erect there chapels of certain religious denominations?
5.	If so. is the erection of these chapels of a public character, or if these religious denominations were simply permitted to do so by the Government?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The battlefield at Vimy Ridge embraces a front of approximately 5 miles. A parcel of land approximately six acres at the highest point of Vimy Ridge has been acquired from private owners with a view to the erection thereon of a suitable memorial.
4 and 5. No informatiton.


NEW WELLAND CANAL.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	When was the work in connection with the new Welland canal scheme started?
2.	When was the work discontinued?
3.	What was the total cost of the work done during the above period of construction?
4.	When was the work recommenced in 1919, and when did it stop?
5.	What was the nature of the work done during 1919 and what was the total cost thereof?
6.	How many men were employed thereon during 1919?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Preliminary surveys date back to 1908 and were continued until 1913. Actual construction commenced September, 1913.

2.	The work of construction actually ceased in April, 1917, but the work of closing up the contractors' estimates, maintaining Government property and plant was carried on until 31st December, 1918.
3.	Preliminary surveys (approx.)	$	187,232.15
Construction . work and plant taken over from contractors, as per final estimates for sections 1,
2,	3, 4A, and 5 and materials purchased by
department, etc	 16,550,883.17
Total to March 31, 1919 . . $16,738,115.32 Expenditure incurred between 1st Jan. and 31st.
March, 1919	 683,315.84
Total expenditure incurred up to 31st Dec., 1918 ..$16,054,799.48
4.	Contracts were dated January 17, 1919; work actually commenced in February. Contracts expired December 31, 1919.
5.	Purchase of plant, equipment, plant materials and repairs, and general construction work. The cost for 1919 was as follows:
1st Jan., 1919 to 31st March, 1919$	683,315.84
1st Apl., 1919 to 31st March, 1920 3,768,760.22

1st Jan., 1920 to 31st March, 1920	61,449.23
Actual expenditure incurred
during the calendar year 1919$ 4,390,626.83
6.	Tire largest number employed at one time was during the last week of July when the force including engineering staff was 2,786. Average monthly force was 1,458.


CANADIAN AVIATION CORPS.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Does the Government intend to buy new material for the organization of a Canadian Aviation Corps?
2'. If so, from whom?
3.	At what conditions?
Rt, Hon. Mr. SIFTON:
1.	Small quantities of material may be needed.
2.	In the usual way, by War Purchasing Commission.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Has the Government passed an Order in Council for the formation of a Canadian Aviation Corps?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to table this Order in Council?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.


TRENT CANAL.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What is the total amount which has been spent by the Government on the Trent canal during the last twenty-five years?
2.	Wrhat amount was spent on this canal last
year?
3.	How many persons are permanently employed thereon?
4.	What was the total maintenance cost last year?
5.	W;hat -was the total revenue derived therefrom during the last fiscal year?
6.	WThat amount of freight was transported on said canal during the last fiscal year?
7.	What is the draft of the canal? '


Hon. Mr. REID :: 1.	$20,049,130.28.	.
2.	$1,434,713.49.
3.	93 employees, permanently employed throughout the year and 91 employed during the season of navigation only.
4.	$428,851.22.
5.	$2,954.37-from rentals under hydraulic leases. There are no tolls charged on any canals.
6.	Season of 1919-69,118 tons of freight.
7.	Trenton to Peterborough, 8 feet, 4 inches; Peterborough to lake Couchiching, 6 feet.


CANADIAN MERCANTILE MARINE EARNINGS.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borougli):: With reference to the statement of the Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, page 937 unrevised Hansard, that the net profit of the Canadian Mercantile Marine during the past year was $1,406,000, were the earnings of the Government steamer T. J. Drummond included in this amount?


Hon. Mr. REID:: No. See answer by Hon. Mr. Ballantyne to question asked by Mr. Cannon, page 957 of unrevised Hansard.


COURT MARTIAL PROCEDURE.
Air. POWER:: 1.	Is it a fact that during the year 1919 a committee was constituted by the Army Council to inquire into the law and rules of proceeding in regard to military court martial?
2.	Has a copy of the report of this committee been placed in the hands of the Militia Council of Canada?
3.	If so, is it the intention of the Department of Militia and Defence to make a thorough study of this report with a view to correcting abuses if any exist in the law and rules of proceeding relating to court martial in Canada?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.


C.P.R. TAXATION.
Mr. JOHNSTON:: How much has the Canadian Pacific Railway paid in special taxes under the provisions of Order in Council, P.C. 631, of March 14, 1918?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1918 accounting period, $996,001.23. A further tax of $467,096,01 was levied under Income War Tax Act, 1917, making total payment for 1913 period, $1,463,097.24.


LEVIS DRILL HALL CARETAKER.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Who has been appointed caretaker of the Levis drill hall?
2.	Where was he residing (a) when he was appointed, and (b) six months before his appointment?
3.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
4.	What is his salary?
5.	What was the salary of his predecessor?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	George Mercier (a returned soldier).
2.	(a) 44 Carrier st., Quebec, P.Q.; (b) 331 Fourth ave., Limoilou, P.Q.
3.	The General Officer commanding Military District No. 5, Quebec.
4.	$2 per diem.
5.	$2 per diem.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-BUSINESS PROFITS TAXATION.
Mr. CALDWELL:: What amount was paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in Business Profits Tax in 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Accounting period ended 30th June, 1915, none; accounting period ended 30th June, 1916, none (this was due to tax paid to United Kingdom); accounting period ended 31st December, 1916, $588,600.20; accounting period ended 31st December, 1917, none; income tax paid for 1917 period, $1,765,475.13; accounting period, ended 31st December, 1918, none; amount paid for 1918 period under Income War Tax Act, 1917, and Order in Council 14th March, 1918, $1,463,097.24; accounting period ended 31st December, 1919; returns for 1919 period not filed (the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, provides the returns may be filed on or before 1st July, 1920; total tax paid by Canadian Pacific Railway Company for accounting periods 1915 to 1918, inclusive, $3,817,172.57.


POTATOES EXPORTED.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What was the total export of potatoes from Canada to all countries from the crop grown

in 1918, giving the number of bushels exported each month from August 1, 1918, to July 31, 1919?	.	*


Martin Burrell: The total export
of potatoes from Canada to all countries from August 1, 1918, to July 31, 1919, is as follows: The department has no information *as to the export of potatoes as to crop" grown in 1918.
	1918.	Bushels.
Month of: August. . . . 'September. . October.. . . iNovember. . . December. . .	1919.	. .. 27,8'61 . . . 275,953 . . . . 328,866Month of: January.. .. February.. .. March. . . . April	
May	
June	
July	. .. 438,343 ,. .. 350,653 . . . 599,613 . . . . 877,669 . . .. 200,227 . . .. 58,613


EXPERIMENTAL FARM SYSTEM.
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	How many experimental farms, stations, substations and illustration stations are there lin the system maintained from the vote for experimental farms tor the year 1918J19?
2.	How many acres are there in the whole system of farms?
3.	What was the total amount paid out of the vote for experimental farms for that year?
4.	Was there an additional amount paid out for salaries under the head of Civil Government, if so, what amount?
5.	What was the total revenue from these farms?
6.	What amount was ipaid out for farm labour for the same year?
7.	Does the work carried on at the Central Farm at Ottawa relate specially to Ontario or to all the provinces?
8.	How many acres are there in the Central Farm?
9.	What was the amount paid in salaries at the Central Farm under the head of Civil Government for the year mentioned?
10.	"What was the amount of salaries paid out of the vote for experimental farms in connection with the Central Farm for 1918-19?
Ill What amount was paid for farm labour land what revenue was received from the Central Farm?
12.	How many of the above-mentioned farms are in Ontario and how many in Quebec?
13.	Where are each of these farms located and at what distance are they from the Central Farm at Ottawa?
14.	What is the acreage of each, also cost, revenue received, salaries paid under Civil Government, and wages for farm labour for the year 1918-19 for each?
15.	What was the amount expended at the Kapuskasing Farm for that year and how much was for labour of interned alien enemy prisoners?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Five farms, 16 stations, 2 tobacco stations, 3 substations, 42 illustration stations.
2.	11,539 acres and 2,161 acres of illustration stations, at the present time.
3.	61,024,319.83.
4.	Yes.
Civil government salaries	$102,172.33
Civil government contingencies.. 6,214.65 War appropriation	 4,115.00

5.	$171,816.05.
6.	$410,641.83.
7.	The Central Farm is both an Experimental Farm for Ontario and an institution of research for the Dominion, including Ontario, as well as the directing headquarters of the Experimental Farm system throughout Canada.
8.	465 acres.
9.	Answered by No. 4.
10.	$23,774.24.
11.	Expenditure for labour, $105,721.27; revenue, $33,009.65.
12.	In Ontario, the Central Farm, one branch station, one tobacco station. In Quebec, four branch stations, two tobacco stations.
13.	In Ontario-at Ottawa, Kapuskasing and Harrow. In Quebec-at La Ferme Anne de la Pocatiere, Farnham and St. Jacques.
Distances from the Central Farm, by rail.
Kapuskasing	542
Harrow	487
La Ferme	623
Cap Rouge	280
Lennoxville	230
<Ste. Anne	356
Farnham	  163
St. Jacques	146
14.
Farm.
Station.	Acreage.	Cost.	Revenue.	Labour.Kapuskasing	
1,282	$55,521.66	$5,375.25	$15,430.75Harrow	
49	6,907.49	4,593.03	2,490.61La Ferme	
1,200	25,580.35	588.57	10,305.61Cap Rouge	
339	54,699.66	2,981.00	21,314.15Lennoxville	
449	58,165.08	6,610.45	12,173.70St. Anne	
251	38,895.83	7,520.53	18,062.57Farnham	
65	6,335.91	481.84	4,051.73St. Jacques	
8	999.97	161.00	693.00
Labour at Kapuskasing does not include that of interned aliens, nor war bonus or provisional allowance at any station.
The station at St. Jacques was only rented and is not now in operation.
No salaries were paid under Civil Government at any of the above stations.
15.	Total expenditure $54,876.05, including $12,084,05 * for interned alien enemy labour covering the period January 1917, to February 1919.


NORTH POINT LIGHTHOUSE CARETAKER.
Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	Who is the caretaker of the lighthouse at the North Point of Anticosti?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	How many applications were received for this position, and what are the names of each applicant?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	There is no caretaker at present in charge of the lighthouse at the North Point of Anticosti.
2.	Appointment has not yet been made.
3.	Twenty-five-Adrien Pelletier, Isidoie Sanche, Laureat Gallant, Joseph McDonald, Aurele Roy, Louis Croteau, Frank Dupuis, Charles A. MacDuff, Albert Duchesneau, Joseph H. Delisle, Augustus C. Riley, Raoul
Bergeron, John Harbour, P. Baudin, P. Duguay, N. Boudreault, A. Boudreau, J. Boudreau, O. LeBlanc, G. Turbis, H. Boudreau, G. C. Simpson, E. Donaldson, Johnny P. CormieT, C. LeBlanc.


&quot;LADY GREY&quot;-CREW'S UNIFORMS.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	With reference to a question placed on the Order Paper and answered on April 7, 1920, it is stated: " That all the uniforms for the " Lady Grey " were ordered after satisfactory prices were arranged for a suitable quallity of material."
2.	What were these satisfactory prices?
3.	Where was the material purchased?
4.	Were any attempts made to enter into such arrangements with any other firms?
5.	If so, which were the other firms?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1 and 2.
Summer Uniforms.
Chief Officer's suits	$35
Petty Officer's suits	32
Trousers	 5

Winter Uniforms.
All suits	[DOT]	$45
Long overcoats	44
Reefer overcoats	42
Peajackets	39
Trousers	 6
3.	From the Christie Clothing Company, Montreal, who manufactured the uniforms at the above prices including all material.
4.	No, as the arrangement arrived at with the Christie Clothing Company to supply uniforms made of the material selected at the above mentioned prices was considered a very satisfactory one.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY STOCKS.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What were the different classes of the Grand Trunk Railway Company's stock quoted at in January, 1918, as regards, First Preference Stock five per cent; Second Preference Stock five per cent; Third Preference Stock four per cent; Ordinary or Common Stock; Five per cent Grand1 Trunk Debenture Stocks ; Five per cent Great Western Debenture Stocks; Four per cent Grand Trunk Debenture Stocks; Four per cent Northern Debenture Stocks?


George Green Foster: This is not a matter of record in the Government departments. The information sought will be obtained by reference to financial papers and other sources. There are constant changes in the prices of stock; the Government has no record of them.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	Was there any printing done for the Government outside of the Printing Bureau during the years 1918-1919?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	What are the addresses of persons or firms to whom such printing was given?
4.	What amount was paid for this outside printing, in each case, in 1918-19192


Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	What number of translators are employed by the Senate, House of Commons and the different departments of the Government, and what number are employed by each department?
2.	How many of these are employed permanently?
3.	How many are engaged for the session only?
4.	What is the total annual cost of the translation service?
5.	Was any translation done outside of Ottawa during the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1919?
6.	If so, in how many Instances and what was the rate paid per page of printed rnalter?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many non-Canadian born are there in the different Departments of the Government where the services of engineers, architects, draughtsmen, etc., are required?
2.	How many non-Canadian born engineers, architects, draughtsmen, etc., have been given positions within the last five years in the different departments of the Government?
3.	How many Canadian born engineers, architects, draughtsmen, etc., have obtained similar positions within the last five years?
4.	Were American engineers given preference in obtaining such positions and appointed over the heads of Canadian born engineers, architects, etc.?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.

Mr. CAHILL:: For a copy of all papers, letters, correspondence between the Department of Justice or any of its officers and the Civil Service Commission or any of its members with reference to the promotion of the Secretary to the Deputy Minister of Justice in 1919 and 1920.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: For a return showing 'the number of farmers who enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force: (a) voluntarily; (b) under the Military Service Act.


Joseph Archambault: For a Return showing:-
1.	Amounts loaned or credits given by the Government of Canada: (a) to Greece; (b) to Rumania.
2.	The dates these loans were granted or credits given: (a) to Greece; (b) to Rumania.
3.	The nature of merchandises purchased by the Government of Canada and charged in each case: (a) to Greece; (b) to Rumania.
4.	The names of commercial firms or persons from whom said goods were so purchased, specifying; (a) the nature of goods in each case; (b) the amounts paid by the Government to these firms or persons in each case and also the date of these payments.



FEDERAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION.

Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a Federal Bureau of Education should be established at Ottawa.
He said: On the 29th day of last month the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) introduced a resolution in this House which read:	-
That, in the opinion of this House, it is essential for the future national welfare of Canada that appropriate measures be taken by the Government to fit and prepare all immigrants of alien origin for assuming the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
That motion was agreed to by the Government and by all hon. members in this House, and in view of that I think I am justified in the assertion that this House acknowledges the existence in Canada of

an undesirable condition of affairs, for the removal of which they suggest that " appropriate measures '' be taken. It is my duty this afternoon to state what I consider to be appropriate measures for satisfactorily coping with this undesirable condition of things, and I trust that hon. members, especially those gentlemen who come from western provinces, will avail themselves of this opportunity to-day to give us the benefit of their observation and experience of conditions as they have found them in Canada, and 'to make suggestions as to how those conditions may be improved. I think we may all take it for granted that it is the common desire of the people of this country to attain, as far as it is possible to do so, some degree of national unity. I think it is a safe assumption that this is the desire of us all. Mr. Speaker, while I hold very strongly to the opinion that the greatest obstacle to national unity, national peace, and national harmony in Canada has been and is that section of the British North America Act which gives complete and exclusive authority to the provinces to deal with educational affairs. I wish to assure the House, notwithstanding that unshake-able opinion, that the resolution which I now propose for consideration is not intended in any sense to infringe upon the rights of the provinces to control their own affairs in the matter of education.
But, Sir, while it is not my intention to make any motion that will tend to encroach upon the constitutional rights of the provinces to control their own educational systems, I do believe that this House can, and I say now that it should, take some definite steps at the earliest possible moment to assist the provinces in the important and far-reaching task of developing a class of citizens who will not only understand and fully appreciate the duties and responsibilities of high Canadian citizenship, but who will be as ready to bear their full share of those duties and responsibilities as they are anxious to participate in all the benefits and privileges of citizenship within the borders of Canada. We have aided the provinces in many ways by grants of money, and otherwise, in respect to matters which were just as strictly provincial and just as entirely within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Parliaments, as is this matter of education. I am free to admit, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces have done a great deal in the direction of educating the people and in developing their own educational systems. But I also believe that we have ample evidence that the provinces have
failed to produce the kind of citizens whom we should desire to see in Canada. I make this statement as applicable in a general sense. They have failed because there are in every province a deplorable number of illiterates; and, to this extent at any rate, I think I may say without fear of contradiction that the provinces have failed in their duty to develop a proper Canadian citizenship. Their task, I grant, has been difficult, and a good part of the burden which the provinces have had to bear in the matter of education has been placed upon their shoulders by the Government at Ottawa. In order to show the true condition of educational affairs in Canada and, at the same time, to emphasize as briefly and as clearly as I possibly can the necessity for supplementing the work that has been carried on by the provinces, I purpose to give a few figures to the House. These figures I am taking from the official census records of 1911. Of our population in 1911, five years of age and over, 663,453 were unable to read or write any language, or 105 out of each 1,000 of the population. In 1901 143 out of each 1,000 of the population were unable to read or write any language. These figures indicate that some improvement has been made in the interval, and I wish to give the provinces credit for it. In regard to these illiterates to whom I have called your attention it may be of interest to note that ,115 males and 98 females in each 1,000 were born in Canada, that 38 males and 41 females were British, born outside Canada, and that 169 males and 170 females were foreign born.
But I want to speak more particularly this afternoon of the illiterates, 21 years and over-that is illiterates of voting age-those who, because of their age, are recognized as having the right to select their representatives in this Parliament and in the provincial parliaments. I think that from what I have said we have very litle ground to complain of illiteracy on the part of British immigrants coming into this country. Indeed, so long as the number of Canadian born illiterates is about three to one of the British born, it ill becomes us to criticise, on the ground of their illiteracy, the immigrants coming from other parts of the British Empire.
The large number of Canadian born illiterates demonstrates, to my mind, the inefficiency of the various provincial departments of education in handling their educational problems, and also the need of this Government coming to the assistance of the

provinces in that work. I am sure you will all agree with me when I say that at least all Canadian and British born citizens should be able to read and write and take an intelligent interest in public affairs, and should be able to assist in the task of Canadianizing those who come from foreign lands. Unfortunately we have thousands of Canadians, thousands of citizens born in Canada, who are almost as alien as those who come to this country from foreign lands and who are in no better position to shoulder their share of the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship than are those who' may be denominated as foreigners.
Let us consider in this connection the problems which the province of Saskatchewan has to face, and in referring particularly to that province I will be indicating very similar conditions in the other three western provinces and to some extent conditions which are similar in the older provinces in the East. From a report which I have here which is entitled "Saskatchewan Educational Survey," and which was prepared at the instance of the Saskatchewan Government and submitted to the public with their approval and sanction, I find that out of 2,100 rural schools in that province there were 150 Slavonic schools. What I wish particularly to direct your attention to is that in these 150 Slavonic schools there were 4,806 pupils in all grades.' Of those pupils 2,577 were in grade one; that is to say those just beginning at the age of six years.


Mr. GOULD:: Are you now referring to
the year 1911?	.


John Wesley Edwards: No. I thank the hon. gentleman for that question. This report refers to the year 1916. I wish you to know that in the second grade there were only'692 pupils; in the fifth grade -that would be from ten years on-there were 183 and when we reach the eighth grade -that is 13 years and over-the number drops to 39. It must be apparent to every person that in the cases I have mentioned nearly all of these children left school without any knowledge of Canadian history and without any appreciation of, or training in, the essentials of Canadian citizenship.
There were in the province of Saskatchewan, in 1916, according to this report, 18,934 Mennonites. It is a well known fact that these Mennonites have persistently resisted all attempts to organize public schools or to be instructed in English. They have assumed an attitude of hostility along these lines ever since they came into the 
country. Who is to blame? Are we to place the blame for that on the Saskatchewan Government? I do not think so. The reason I do not think so is because of an agreement which was entered into between the Mennonites and the Federal Government of Canada in July 1873, by which agreement the Mennonites were exempted from military service. But I will quote the words of that agreement, showing that there was another exemption. Those words are:
The fullest privilege of exercising their religious principles as by law afforded the Mennonites without any kind of niclestation or restriction whatever, anjl the same privilege extends to the education of their children in the schools.
That was an exemption or privilege-call it what you like-which was placed in that agreement. They were so eager to get these people into the country that the Government of that day entered into an agreement which, to say the least of it, was in my opinion an extremely foolish agreement. The Parliament which passed a law of that kind should not shirk its duty now in shouldering a part of the burden which it, by that law, imposed upon the province of Saskatchewan and upon the Dominion of Canada. Then there are, according to the report, in addition to these Mennonites, 5,880 Douk-hobours with their community schools conducted in the German language; about 78,428 people of Russian, and Austro-iHungar-ian origin and 27,506 Ruthenians of different kinds, or a total of 130,748, of those whom I have mentioned.
Now, Sir, when we realize the fact that about 60 per cent of those that I have named get no further than grade 1, we can understand, that we are turning out in that country, year after year, a class of citizens who have not the faintest conception of the duties of Canadian 'citizenship, or any appreciation of what they owe to this country. Nearly one-half of the population of Saskatchewan is of foreign birth; and I think that there were over 100,000 in the three Prairie Provinces in 1916 who could not speak a word of English. Under those conditions, Mr. Speaker, can you wonder that the report from which I have quoted, and which I say was issued with the approval of the Saskatchewan Government, contains this recommendation:
That the Dominion Government he urged to pass the necessary legislation to provide a fund for the elimination of adult illiteracy, to be distributed among the several provinces for evening schools and continuation schools.
There you have an expression of opinion from the province of Saskatchewan; and if

I had no other warrant for proposing the present resolution, Jthat recommendation from the Saskatchewan Government, I think, would be sufficient to justify me in asking your earnest consideration of this matter.
Sir, we have in Canada, some fifty odd different nationalities, speaking some eighty different languages and dialects. Between forty and fifty per cent of the .population of Canada west of the Great Lakes is not Anglo-Saxon. These different races and groups are estimating this country and its institutions, and their duties and responsibilities as citizens, from fifty different viewpoints. The task which lies before us as members of this House, as (well as before the various provincial legislatures, is to, as speedily as possible, reduce those fifty different viewpoints to one viewpoint, and that the Canadian viewpoint. In this connection I would like to quote from an address which was delivered in the city of Winnipeg last October by T)r. Anderson of Regina, Saskatchewan. I may say that the occasion on which Dr. Anderson delivered this address was the holding of a great educational conference in that city, a conference which was called "The National Conference on character .education in relation to Canadian Citizenship." There were at that conference, which lasted three days, .some 1,500 accredited delegates from every province of the Dominion. There were also present as delegates, leading educationists from the United States, and from the United Kingdom. I believe I am right in saying that every province in Canada was represented at that conference; I think I am right in saying that every university in Canada was represented; and I am sure I am right in saying that that conference was the largest educational conference ever held in this Dominion, and one of the largest of ,the kind ever held on the North American continent. That alone is sufficient to indicate that those who are spending their lives in, and devoting all their energies and abilities to educational matters showed *their keen interest by travelling some of them hundreds and others thousands of miles at their own expense to attend that conference, talk over matters relating to this Dominion, and confer together as to the weaknesses in our national system and endeavour to arrive at some conclusion as to how those weaknesses might be remedied. The gentleman to -whom I refer, Dr. Anderson, is the "Director of Education among the hewer Canadians" in the province of
iSaskatchewan. In the course of Ms address, after referring to the large immigration into this country, Dr. Anderson says:
As the result of this tremendous human influx from practically all over the face of the earth, we have in Canada to-day large areas, urban as well as rural, populated with unassimilated groups with varying _ social ideals, varying languages, and varying ideas of Canadian citizenship and loyalty to the British Empire. This situation has been with us for years, but we have neglected to face it with any definite national policy. I say a " definite national policy," with a full realization of the fact that each province has the right-the sole right-to deal with its own peculiar educational problems. But this problem of citizenship is one that vitally affects this young nation, and I see no reason why a fairly uniform system in dealing with the question of racial assimilation should not be universally adopted throughout our Dominion. At any rate, we shall never obtain a satisfactory solution until every province realizes to the full that from an educational standpoint at least it must regard great public questions from a national as well as from a provincial point of view. Just so long as it is necessary to conduct public meetings, to write hooks and publish newspapers and magazines in a dozen foreign languages, just so long as this undesirable condition in our public affairs exists, we cannot hope for national unity throughout this fair Dominion.
Mr. Speaker, may I refer, just for a, (moment, to the .matter of history to emphasize what has been said? I wonder sometimes if we really appreciate the fact that we live in a country of such vast extent that it -contains provinces as large as many independent countries in the world.
.1 wonder sometimes if we really appreciate what that means in our coming together; or, if you like to put it the other way, what that means in having a tendency to separate. Now what do we find? Starting at the Atlantic ocean and taking province by province you will find that we have in the nine different provinces nine different kinds of history taught. And yet we are looking forward to this becoming a united country whose people will understand history, especially Canadian history from the same *standpoint. I think that such a condition does not make foe,unity; I believe it makes for disunity.	_
Now I am not suggesting that this Federal Board of Education should enforce the teaching of one kind of history-I believe history is not history unless it is a record of facts, I do not say that the Federal Bureau .should take upon itself to say what kind of history should be taught in the various provinces; but I do believe this-and I am confirmed in my belief after carefully reading what took place at the three days' conference in Winnipeg-that

there is sufficient breadth of view amongst the men who direct our educational affairs in the several provinces to enable them to come together and discuss, we will say, matters in relation to history and perhaps form a united opinion as to what kind of history it will be best to authorize. If, Mr. Speaker, such a conference, or the appointment of this bureau, would lead to even two or three out of the nine provinces coming to the same conclusion as to the kind of history they would use in their schools, that would be a gain in itself. But let me repeat once more that I have no desire, and I think it would be very inadvisable to attempt to compel the provinces to depart from what their own educationalists might think was the proper course to take in regard to teaching history or any other subject. I do think, however, that they might confer together to learn the defects or weaknesses of their respective systems, and each would profit thereby. May I quote again from the same gentleman?


Mr.   BBLAND@: What is the date of the report?


Mr. BDWABDS:: The conference was held in Winnipeg on October 20, 21, and 22, 1919. I do not know when this report was printed, but it was since that date. Doctor Anderson states further-and I give his own words because I know I cannot put the idea in a more apt and effective form-that:
We also, if we are to succeed in the stupendous task of Canadianization, must be dominated by one lofty ideal of Canadian national unity resting on the firm basis of devoted and intelligent citizenship. We must be fired by this dominating ideal if we are to succeed. I trust that as a result of this great national conference steps will be taken leading to the establishment of a Dominion Bureau of Education which will he a co-operating, vitalizing and inspiring factor in building up a strong unified Canadian nation.
It seems to me, Sir, that we cannot very well expect unity or concerted action so long as we have various groups in this Dominion clinging to the systems and ideals that they have brought with them from their native countries in Europe. I think, Sir, that this Parliament has not only the right to take definite action, but I believe it is its bounden duty to move in the matter. In that connection may I ask the House to consider this point. The late war disclosed Canada's strength. We are very apt to dwell on that feature; but it is just as true that that war also disclosed Canada's weakness, for it showed that there were thousands of people in this country

enjoying all the privileges of Canadian citizenship who were not prepared to bear their share of the burden of responsibility of that citizenship, and we realized that when a national crisis arose we could not depend on them to perform their part as patriotic citizens. I am not attempting to place the blame for that state of affairs, I am merely stating a fact that I think no one will question. That being so, I think it is indisputable that the responsibility for concerted war action rested-not upon the , several provinces, but upon the Federal Parliament; that was the authority we looked to to see that Canada did its whole duty in that war.
And yet in those things which make for the unifying of a people through the constitutional right of Parliament to interfere in educational matters, the Dominion Parliament has absolutely no authority whatever to check or prevent the inculcation of false ideals or the dissemination of false doctrines throughout this country. This Parliament was held responsible for Canada doing its full share in the war. Every person will agree on the importance of education in bringing people to that frame of mind where they will be willing "to do their bit," yet in matters of such vital importance as education this Parliament has absolutely no constitutional right to interfere in any shape or form.
Now, Sir, I am not advocating that we should put forward any claim to interfere with the rights of the provinces. I know the provinces are jealous of those rights, and I do not want this Parliament to infringe upon them; but I do believe it is possible for the Dominion to co-operate with the provinces in matters of education without in the slightest degree infringing upon provincial rights. Indeed, by co-operation I think we can give the provinces very valuable assistance.
Talking about our rights as a Parliament to check those influences which disunite our people, why, it was admitted in this House only a few days ago by the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) that we have no machinery for stopping the circulation in Canada of those infamous publications known as the Hearst papers. Well, it seems to me that it is pretty nearly time we devised the necessary machinery to deal with that sort of thingf.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, every hon. member will agree that it is impossible to overestimate the danger to a democracy of ignorance and illiteracy. If you add to

ignorance and illiteracy the things that go with them-prejudice, indifference and selfishness, then a democracy may become a menace. How can we expect the best fro m those who are unable to get at the best-to read the best literature? How can we look for that high standard of family life, so essential to the development and prosperity of any country, if the door of opportunity is closed to many of our people through
their illiteracy and their consequent inability to take advantage of that literature which elevates and refines' life?
Now% Sir, I want to impose upon the House a few more figures. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I wished particularly to deal with illiteracy in this [DOT]country in so far as it applied to those of voting age. The following figdres are taken from the census returns of 1911:
Year 1911.	Males 21 years and over.	Voters on Voters' Lists.	Number of Votes polled.	Number of Illiterate males 21 years and over.	Percentage of illiterate males 21 years and over to vote polled.	Average number males 21 years to each constituency.	Average number illiterate males 21 years to each constituency.	1 Average majority 1 of each elected | candidate.British and Canadian born.	Foreign born.	Total.	Ontario	777,153	693,485	480,572	30,355	13,193	=43,548	9	9,036	506	827Quebec	SOS', 488	455,288	324,039	70,679	5,164	=75.843	23	7,792	1,166	402P. E. Is	34,978	No lists.	28,636	1,396	3	= 1,399	4	8,744	349	199N. B	94,295	101,112	79,072	12,076	460	= 12,536	15	13,470	1,790	352N, S	136,747	136,994	113,022	11,079	1.108	= 12,187	10	7,597	677	361Manitoba	143,742	98,588	77,696	4,659	8,607	= 13,266	17	14,374	1,326	783Saskatchewan	177,493	142,414	89,043	4,497	8,827	= 13,224	14	17,749	1,322	1,883Alberta	140,499	107,228	69,775	4,007	6,717	= 10,724	15	-20,071	1,532	1,891Br. Columbia.	185,376	83,081	43,559	7,462	13,183	= 20,645	47	26,482	2,949	1,324Y ukon	5,609	2,552	2,114	273	114	= 387	18	5,609	387	4562,192,380	1,820,742	1,307,528	146,483	57,376	203,859	15$	
: Let me direct attention to the fact that the percentage of illiterate males of twenty-one years and over to the vote polled in 1911 was, in New Brunswick, 15 per cent; in Nova Scotia, 10 per cent; in Manitoba, 17 per cent; in Saskatchewan, 14 per cent; in Alberta, 15 per cent; in British Columbia, 47 per cent, and in the Yukon, 18 per cent. The percentage for the w'hole Dominion was 15J per cent.
Let me direct attention to another aspect of these figures. The number of constituencies in which the actual majorities of the successful candidates were less than the average number of illiterate voters to each constituency was, in Ontario, 41 out of 86; in Quebec, 53 out of 65; in Prince Edward Island, 3 out of 4; in New Brunswick, 7 out of 7; in Nova Scotia, 16 out of 18; in Manitoba, 9 out of 10; in Saskatchewan, 2 out of 10; in Alberta, 3 out of 7; in British Columbia, 6 out of 7. In other words, in 140 constituencies out of 215 the actual majorities of successful candidates
were less than the average number of illiterate voters to each constituency. Now, what does that mean? It simply means that in that election the iques-4 p.m. tion of what kind of representatives we should have in this [DOT]House was entirely in the hands of the illiterate voters if they chose to poll their votes. Moreover, the illiterate and the ignorant are more likely to- be the tools of unscrupulous self-seekers than those who are able to read and think for themselves. These figures which I have given indicate that as regards the intelligent election of ,members to this House, it is high time something was done by the House to supplement the work which is carried on-inefficiently,. I contend-by the provinces.
Some are disposed to think that all the illiteracy is among the foreign born. That is not the case, as the figures which I have given fully demonstrate. Of the number of male persons of voting age in Canada in ,1911 who were unable to read or write in

any language, 95 in every 1,000 were Canadian born; 30 in every 1,000 were British born, outside of Canada; 165 in every 1,000 were foreign born. If the Canadian born and the foreign born measured up to the standard of the immigrants who come from the different parts of the Empire; that is, if only 30 in every 1,000 of our male population of voting age were illiterate, we ;would, perhaps, have something to be proud of. But we have nothing to be proud of in the fact that 95 in every 1,000 Canadian born citizens of voting age are unable to Tead or write.
Let it be borne in mind that illiteracy is not confined to the Western Provinces. The old province of Ontario, which I have heard boast of its educational system ever since I was big enough to hear anything, mak?s a very poor showing in this regard. The older provinces in the East are open to strong censure for the condition prevailing in the matter of illiteracy-a condition which is largely due to the fact that the provinces have not had backbone enough to enforce compulsory school attendance. I hope that something will be done along this line in the near future.
In 1911 the number of foreign born male persons in every 1,000 who were unable to read or write was, in Ontario, 178; in Quebec, 173; in Prince Edward Island, 74; in New Brunswick, 167; in Nova Scotia, 248; in Manitoba, 222; in Saskatchewan, 135; in Alberta, 112; in British Columbia, 191.
Mr. Speaker, the facts which I have placed (before the House demonstrate the need for (assistance to the provinces in the matter of education. I now come to the proposal which I have to offer, namely, the establishment in Ottawa of a Federal Bureau of (Education.
* The idea of a Federal Bureau of Education is not a new one; leading educationists have advocated it for a great many years.
In the United States they have had a Federal Bureau of Education for fifty-two or fifty-three years. The various States on the other side of the line have control over their own educational affairs, and never during the whole fifty years the Federal Bureau of Education Jias been in existence has it attempted to infringe on the rights of the States in any respect. There has been no complaint whatever along that line. On the contrary, the good work which has been done by the United States Federal Bureau has been so widely recognized all over the United States that at the present time there is a very strong demand to raise

it from the status of a bureau to that of a department.
I referred a few moments ago to a speech delivered by Dr. Anderson at the Educational Conference in the city of. Winnipeg. On the third day of the Conference a resolution was moved, and I shall give its wording because it indicates some of the work which I think should be undertaken by the Federal Government. It is as follows :
That this National Conference on Character Education express its approval of the organization of a Dominion Bureau of Education, whose duties shall be to oolleot such statistics and facts and general information as Shall show the condition and progress of education in the several provinces and territories, and to diffuse such information respecting the organization and management of school systems and methods of teaching, as shall aid the people of Canada in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country.
That resolution was spoken to by many gentlemen, and I shall quote a few opinions. Professor Coleman, of Queen's University, said:	-
A Bureau of Education in the United States, established years ago, has done a wonderful work in that country. A great need exists for a similar work to he done in our own country.
Dr. Bexford, of (Montreal, said:
The resolution as I may say for your information, is a resolution similar to that which incorporated the United States Bureau of Education fifty-two years ago, and we know something of what that Bureau has been to the cause of education in the United States. Are we not ready to begin something of a national character in this country?
Dr. Milton Fairchild, who is Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Institution for Moral Instruction, Washington, D.C., spoke as follows:
I do not want to discuss your problems, but 1 would like to clear up some misunderstandings in regard to our Bureau of Education. It is not true that (the Bureau of Education in the United States has any supervisory power at all. It is absolutely restricted to investigation, to report and to advice. It now and then makes a survey on request from a State, of the education going on in the State, carrying to the survey the information which the experts of the bureau have. It is also true that in the new Bill for the establishment of a Department of Education, no supervisory powers are given to the new Department of Education, but all control and all decisions rest in the States, with the State Department of Education and the State government.
Professor Coleman also said:
I am a professor of education in one of our Eastern universities, and my business is to train high school teachers, inspectors, and, presumably, leaders in education. All our up-to-date

information practically comes to us from the United States. We use the Bulletins of the United States Bureau of Education, to know what is going on in the Western Provinces
even	The most effective way,
because it promises the most permanence, and will assure us less bias, or. less chance pf being accused of bias, the most effective way of carrying out our purpose, is by a Bureau of Education, which will not in any way infringe upon or impair provincial rights.


Mr. ROBB:: Was that resolution adopted unanimously at the Winnipeg Conference?


John Wesley Edwards: No, the resolution was not adopted. It was debated in the afternoon of the third day, and it was decided to leave the matter over until the evening. At the evening session an amendment *was moved to the effect that instead of having a Federal Bureau at Ottawa there should be a bureau appointed by the Conference for doing what I have suggested is the proper work of a Federal Bureau at Ottawa, and the Conference proceeded to act upon that suggestion. A cojmcil of fifty was appointed. Four were chosen from each of the nine provinces and these thirty-six chose the other fourteen. This council is a sort of national organization of fifty created for the purpose of carrying on, as far as it could, the work that is now being done by the Federal Bureau in the United States. There seemed to be a fear, ungrounded, I think, on the part of some present-at the 'Conference that a Federal Bureau at Ottawa would in some way interfere with provincial rights and provincial control over educational matters. The Conference was the first of its kind ever held in the Dominion and there was a disposition amongst all the delegates from all the provinces that the cordial feelings which had existed throughout the three days should not be impaired by any dissension at the close, and some of those who had spoken very strongly in favour of a Federal Bureau of Education therefor accepted the compromise, because they did not feel it would be wise to have it go out that there was any very strong difference of opinion in the closing hours of the Conference.
While that was the position taken by the Conference at Winnipeg, at all events there was no difference of opinion amongst the fifteen hundred delegates there present in regard to the advisability of such a bureau as I have suggested. There was, however, some difference of opinion as to whether the bureau should be established at Ottawa and maintained by the funds of the Dominion of Canada, or whether it should be established by the persons who form the conference, and carried on by private subscription alone, or, as has been suggested, by private subscription with assistance from this Government. Now, I have presented arguments in support of my contention that this Government should take an active part in this matter, and I think I have proved the necessity for having the bureau established in Ottawa. To make somewhat clearer just what the work of the bureau would be I shall refer for a moment or two to these documents which contain the report of the United States Bureau of Education. This report says:
The bureau is therefore under permanent obligation to assemble periodically statistics bearing upon all phases of educational activity. The collection, tabulation and interpretation of such statistics involve the labour of a considerable
number of persons	The bureau is
approached for information by thousands of citizens of the United States, and by individuals and official agencies from all parts of the world. This information is furnished through the medium of letters and printed documents.
The report goes on to say that in the statistical division, in the year 1917, returns were collected, tabulated and summarized from, 20,759 schools, and reference is made to hundreds of thousands of letters and bulletins which were sent out by that bureau. Attention is drawn, for example, to such matters as the special purposes of these bulletins, agricultural and rural education, teachers' pensions, commercial education, state school systems, and a great many other subjects which I shall not delay the House by reading. That bureau carries on extensive operations that are of great importance. For instance, a certain state requests the bureau to investigate its educational conditions. The bureau undertakes such an investigation, goes into the history of education in that particular state, ascertains the shortcomings of the system which has been in vogue, and makes a report of its findings, and it can be readily seen what an advantage such an investigation must be to those who are engaged in the profession of teaching. There is* a report here in regard to the state of Ohio, one in regard to Colorado, another in regard to the state of New York. ' Those who are interested in matters educational and who desire to see established in any state the very best system which proper management and thorough acquaintance with conditions can devise, have merely to write to the Federal Bureau to obtain the latest reports and such information as will reveal the defects in their own systems by comparison with the methods followed in

other states. Surely we could carry on some such work at Ottawa if there were a Federal Bureau here. I wonder how many hon. members could stand up here this afternoon and give a comprehensive and definite statement in regard to the school system of any province other than their own. I know that I for one could not do so, notwithstanding the fact that I have naturally taken a great interest in educational matters having been engaged in teaching school for a number of years both in this province and in the province of Manitoba. How many members in the provincial legislature of Ontario could explain every detail of the Ontario educational system? Again, how many in Ontario have any idea of the system employed in the province of Quebec? Or how many persons in Quebec can give a fairly accurate description of the system followed in Ontario or in Manitoba? How many in Manitoba know anything about the system in British Columbia? It seems to me to be manifest that if we had a bureau collecting information in regard to the various systems in the provinces each province would be placed in an advantageous position in regard to education, because each would be able to make use of the information so gathered and determine whether its own system, in comparison with those of other provinces, was defective, or, at least, left room for improvement. I shall suggest some things which I think a bureau such as I advocate might take up with advantage. First of all, I think that the first step in the establishment of a Federal Bureau should be an invitation by this Government to the various Provincial Governments to send two or three of their leading' educationists to Ottawa to meet in conference and talk the subject over, and discuss just what the bureau should do. Would it be too much to ask that this Government set aside $1,000,000, and the nine provinces among them set aside another $1,000,000, to be spread over, let us say, five years in developing the school as a community centre and as an instrument for Canadiani-zation?
We can vote millions for the improvement of roads, for technical education, for assistance to the provinces in the matter of agricultural education, and for other purposes. Along many lines we can vote, and we have voted considerable money. But is any one of these projects for which we have voted money and which are as distinctly provincial in their character, so far as jurisdiction at least is concerned, as the matter of education, to be comnared in importance

with the problem of properly educating the people so that they may become worthy citizens of whom we may be proud? This money might be used for the purpose of placing before the people of Canada the advantages of a unifying Canadianization movement with the school as its symbol and centre, and for distributing, especially throughout the non-English schools, attractive and interesting booklets well illustrated, dealing with Canadian ideals, standards of living, methods of government, the history and development of the country, the great leaders and heroes of Canada, etc. It might be used for promoting a community centre movement to bring together the people of all Canadian communities. In this regard allow me to call attention to the fact that in some of the western provinces, where the foreigners have been allowed to settle in groups, they realize just as much as we do the value of the community centre. They recognize the importance and advantages of amicable social intercourse, and they are forming themselves into community centres. These foreigners are getting together into national communities-for what purpose? Sociability is of course one of their objects, but they are getting together more for the purpose of retaining the ideals which they brought with them to this country, and inculcating in their young those ideals rather than the ideals of Canadian citizenship.
Next, I suggest that some of the money might be properly used for the purpose of giving assistance in the formation of night classes, and the preparation of special books suited to these classes. Many of these people, especially the foreign element, as I have shown, do not send their children to school as they should. The children are out of school when still very young.
I believe from what I have read, from what I have gathered and from what I have stated , in this House, that very many of these foreigners out in out , Western Provinces are eager to learn Canadian customs and would be glad to get any information that it is possible for us to give them. I believe from what I have read and from what I have heard that- they would respond to any eff ort in the direction of establishing these night schools, and I think we should make an effort along that line. If we expect that we are going to make Canadian citizens out of these people, if we expect them to bear their share of the burdens of this country when burdens come, we should do what we can to put them in a position to understand Canadian citizenship and the Canadian form of Government.

I think that special encouragement might be given, to school consolidations and continuation classes in accordance with the recommendation I read a moment ago from the province of Saskatchewan. Some assistance might be given along that line. Some special assistance might be given in training teachers especially for those schools where the foreign element predominate. Lectures might be given in various parts of Canada, illustrated with lantern slides and so on, and I have no doubt that a great deal of instruction might be given in that way to these people whom we want to make good Canadian citizens.
"Oh," but some person objects, "that is the work of the provinces." With all due deference to those Who hold that opinion, I wish to say very emphatically that we are not playing the game and playing it fairly, if we place, or continue to allow to be placed, upon the shoulders of the provinces the entire responsibility for Canadianizing the immigrants that we, and not the provinces, bring into this country. This Government owes a duty to the Dominion of Canada and it has not in the past made any attempt to carry out its part in this matter. We are simply shirking the responsibility when we say, "Oh, under section 93 of the British North America Act, that is a matter for the provinces to deal with," and let it go at that. We cannot get rid of our responsibility in that way. We have had ample opportunity to know what the situation is. When we look at the figures we see that the provinces have not been able apparently to deal as effectively with this matter as they should in the interest of Canada. Are we going to fold our arms and say that we have no interest in this matter whatever and let it go at that? I do not think that is the proper attitude to take. We are shirking our responsibility if we take that attitude.
The war taught a great many lessons. I have often heard the statement made that the war was fought to crush ouf militarism and to make the world safe for democracy. It seemed to me that the next thing in the human drama, in which some 66,000 Canadians laid down their lives, is to take the necessary steps to make democracy safe for the world and we cannot fold oiw arms and say : " This is a matter for the provinces to deal with and we have no concern in it." That is not the kind of courage out boys displayed in making the world safe for democracy.
There is a good deal of social unrest all over the world and we find that there have 88
been what you might call " populistic " uprisings in certain	countries.	In theUnited States	and	indeed	in	Canada,we have had	the	shadow	of	the redhand. We have had enough to show us that it is	time	for us	to	make a
move towards getting rid of this illiteracy or ignorance which is a menace to any country. There is any amount of evidence to show that we have in Canada to-day those who would disintegrate and destroy everything that makes for national progress and stability. Their motto appears to be to satisfy the elementary desires with the least effort possible. They would bring all to a dead level if they could and, setting aside all human experiences, life to them would consist of eating, drinking, sleeping and having a good time. They sneer at the success which is only to be obtained by the greatest personal sacrifice and hard labour and they scorn the accumulations of art, science, literature and history. Their only hope for carrying on their propaganda is ignorance and illiteracy amongst certain classes of our population. They know that they have no hope of success with an educated and enlightened people. ' Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel we have an obligation resting upon onr shoulders and that this Parliament should do something to assist the provinces to grapple with the problem of Canadianizing especially the foreign ele-.ment. I believe that we can do a great work here, just as great a work as that which has been done by the Federal 'Bureau in the United States. I am sure that work can be done without infringing in the slightest degree upon the authority of the provinces to handle and manage their educational affairs I think it should be done co-operatively. I say that the bureau would not have the right to attempt to, and would not in the slightest degree, infringe upon provincial authority in educational matters. But I cannot help but think that great benefit would accrue to every one of the provinces just in the coming together of their leading educationists and discussing matters of education affecting the whole Dominion of Canada. After all we want a united Canadian citizenship not in one province but in the whole of the nine provinces. I believe that another thing that can be said in favour of this bureau is that it would have a tendency to break down those barriers which to-day to a great extent separate the provinces and make them feel that they must confine their activities to their own particular domains. It would break down those barriers, make for closer union one with the other and result



in very great benefit to the whole of Canada. I have very great pleasure in moving the resolution seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson).


Hon. HENRI SEVERIN BELAND (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to offer a few remarks on the resolution introduced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) I desire to say at the' outset that I do not wish in the least to minimize the paramount importance of public instruction or of education. But I beg to disagree with my hon. friend when he claims that there is a duty devolving upon this Parliament to organize and establish a Federal Bureau of Education which would in a way, exercise a certain amount of authority over the provincial legislatures. That defects in education exist in the different provinces of Canada I believe every hon. member within my hearing will admit; perfection does not belong to this world. But every legislature in Canada, every Provincial Government, is fully aware of those defects; and I believe it is doing those legislatures an injustice to contend that they are not bringing to the task of wiping out these deficiencies the courage, the energy, and the attention that the situation demands.
My hon. friend has rather gloomily pictured the educational .situation of Canada; indeed if I have taken down his words accurately, he characterized that situation as deplorable. He refrained, in particular, from making any allusion to any other province than the province of Saskatchewan. But in that province especially he referred to a situation arising from the presence amongst their inhabitants of a certain religious class; and if I understood the hon. gentleman aright, this particular class was enjoying certain privileges not by reason of the British North America Act, but owing to the fact that certain legislation had been passed by this Parliament. Therefore, the remedy would lie with this Parliament in so far as this particular class of citizens is concerned.
I must confess that my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) presented his case in a dispassionate spirit which is highly commendable and for which I have no hesitation in extending him my congratulations. He has defended himself very strongly from the accusation that could be brought home to him of attempting to infringe upon the rights, or privileges, conferred upon the provinces by the Constitution. I must say immediately, however, that I fear the creation of a Fed-e-'-] Bureau of Education would be construed in the different provinces as an encroachment upon their rights.

My hon. friend, in the course of his remarks, and especially in his concluding observations, made an allusion to the conference held in Winnipeg, at which several resolutions in regard to education were presented, many of which were rejected and a few adopted. He also pointed out that it would be proper that the Federal authorities should grant certain assistance to such an independent educational body as that conference was. To that there cannot be. any objection. That this Government should grant financial aid to those educational authorities to get together annually or biannually in order to discuss between themselves the great educational problems, representatives as they are of every province in the Dominion, cannot be objected to- the collection of information in that way would be useful. But the moment you clothe the Bureau of Education with the Federal authority, then you encroach upon the rights of the provinces as guaranteed by the Constitution.
My hon. friend also referred to one particular feature of the effects that would be obtained by the creation of such a bureau^ He intimated that it would be efficacious in removing a spirit of prejudice and intolerance in 'Canada. There is no doubt that a certain spirit of prejudice and intolerance does exist in Canada. I am, however, of the . opinion expressed at the opening of the present session by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government for the time being, that these prejudices are fast dying out. As far as the province from which I come is concerned, there is no spirit of intolerance. Strange as the statement may sound in your ears, strange as the affirmation may appear to you, there is, in the province of Quebec, no intolerance. This I could demonstrate by endless and numberless incidents and citations, but I am not going to burden the House with them. I will content myself with saying that as I was about to rise from my seat my eyes fell upon a newspaper on my desk, and which I had not yet had time to read to-day. i now have before me this morning's issue of the Montreal Gazette, and on the last page of that paper you will read a short despatch; professing to be a 'Canadian press cablegram from London. It is dated April 17, and it reads:
Sir Andrew MacPhail, of Montreal, had a letter in yesterday's Spectator, the Londonweekly review, defending Quebec from criticisms made in a hook by Hugh Stutfield, which, he says, may be an honest book, but the instruct tion therein anent Quebec is incorrect in every particular. Sir Andrew asserts that Quebec

people are more tolerant of all kinds of education and religious forms and the least tolerant of fanatism. Quebec is the only place in the [DOT]world, he says, which has successfully withstood the emissaries of evil from the labour world of Europe. Lastly, adds Sir Andrew, the only two churches in Canada, which do not interfere in politics, are the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland. The Spectator also, as an editorial on the Irish question, which recalls Canada's political troubles in the early part of the last century, which the Spectator submits, contain a warning for those Independent Liberals, who denounce the Home Rule Bill because it faces realities, and admits that Ulster is as profoundly hostile to the south and west of Ireland as Ontario was to Quebec. In Canada, says the journal, it is certain that religious disputes have lost much of their bitterness in the past half century and, reverting to Sir Andrew McPhail's letter, it says that his statement confirms the wisdom of the partition affected in 1867 between Quebec and Ontario.
I could quote much of similar testimony to the like effect, especially from letters addressed to the authorities of Laval university accompanying contributions to the rebuilding fund, but I must not delay the House. The question of education in this country is in a class by itself, and it is so treated in the British North America Act. For instance, it cannot be likened to or assimilated-


Mr. KEEFER:: -May I interrupt my hon. friend? I notice in the Ottawa Journal the reference in the despatch quoted is to the Catholic church and the Church of England.
Mr. BELAiND: I thank my hon. friend for the correction. II thought that it must have been a mistake as printed here. Referring to the question of education, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be compared to or assimilated with the question of, for instance, public health. We have been more or less accustomed to regard the latter question as pertaining exclusively to the provinces, though in the British North America Act there is nothing to indicate that public health is left particularly to provincial jurisdiction. One has only to think of the inspection of immigrants; the establishment of quarantine stations, the pollution of interprovincial streams; the examination of animals for slaughter and the preservation of their health in general; the sale, manufacture and importation of food products and of drugs-all of which have a direct bearing upon public health-to realize that they cannot be considered in the same class as education. In their very nature they are matters of federal jurisdiction, at least to a large extent. But the spirit and the letter of the British North America Act 884
confine education to the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Why is it, it may be asked, that the Fathers of Confederation thought it judicious to make that stipulation? No doubt at that time of Confederation there existed -as there exists to-day-a body of opinion which held that neutral or public schools were preferable; but there also existed at that time a large body of opinion which held that religious education must be at the bottom of public instruction. I am not here to discuss in particular the merits or the demerits of public schools as against separate or denominational schools, for I do not think it is pertinent to this discussion. But be that as it may, Confederation itself was a compromise, and the result of that compromise was the consecration of the principle that in some of the provinces separate schools should be maintained; in other words, that the wishes of the parents should be respected in all matters of education. To-day fully one-third of our population holds the same view.
It would be idle, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to assimilate the science of health, for instance, with the science of education. While it is possible in matters of public health, to reach uniformity of views, regardless of creed or of race, and whilst it is possible to enact laws and to pass regulations of general application for its preservation, it is impossible to secure the same unanimity in matters of education, especially of primary education.	-
As I said a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I refrain from entering upon a comparison of both systems of education-the public, or neutral system, as it is generally known, and the religious system. It might lead to the creation of ill-feeling or the accentuation of that ill-feeling. wherever it may now exist. All I want to say is that so far as Canada is concerned-and I know my hon. friend will bear me out-the system which has as its main foundation the teaching of religion, has justified its existence during the last few years. Stability in a social sense as well as a political sense, resistance to the penetration of ultraradical principles, is evidence of the efficacy of religious education in our schools. No doubt, as my hon. friend has very properly contended, instruction has an allimportant role to play, not only in Canada, but in the world.
It has a part to play in the struggle of existence. It has a great part to play in the race for supremacy in commercial and

industrial activities. But while instruction is paramount in importance, can it compare with what may be more properly called education? Instruction is the cultivation *of mind by knowledge. Education is the [DOT]cultivation of the heart; the cultivation in the heart of true and sound principles of family affection; a realization of duty, the practice of religious and moral obligations, and, perhaps above all, respect for authority. All these principles are absolutely important as forming a firm basis of human society.
I do my hon. friend the credit of saying that he is animated by a desire to render service to his country. He wants to develop in this country what he terms a spirit of Canadianism. I share his view entirely. What is patriotism? Patriotism is a deep sense of national honour backed up by love of home and pride of race, sustained and -supported by unalterable attachment to traditions and to institutions. Institutions may be political or they may be religious. Traditions are not the same to all races. An Englishman in Canada may be proud of his ancestors and of their doings in history; they are a part of his domestic domain, as I would call it. It is his tradition; it belongs to him; he is attached to it. The Fiench Canadian is deeply and firmly attached to his religious institutions. In what you call the separate schools the children are imbued with the spirit of the religious institution and have a respect for tradition. As to political in-5 p.m. stitutions, is there a province in Canada where the spirit of preserving our British institutions is not highly cultivated? I am not as conversant with the schools of other provinces as I am with those of Quebec,-my hon. friend has properly said that we can hardly be as conversant with other provinces as we are with our own-but I take it for granted that in all the schools of other provinces the true spirit of Canadianism is highly cultivated and maintained.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend is wrong in that..


Henri Sévérin Béland: Well, I can speak more particularly for the province of Quebec. There, tradition is revered; the religious spirit of our ancestors is preserved. The political institutions of Great Britain, as they are implanted in Canada, are just as sacred to French-Canadians as they are to British-Canadians.
Uniformity has its advantages, but so has variety. The visitor who travels
fMr. B?land.]
through Canada and then departs from our shores cannot receive an impression of monotony as respects our ethnical conditions. Ethnically there is nothing monotonous about Canada. You meet the French and the Scotch and the English and the Irish, as well as those people of all those nationalities whom you have invited to become British citizens. You see a variety of religious creeds. But any one who has travelled through this country and has visited homes in Quebec as well as in Western Canada and Ontario must depart firmly convinced that there is a unity of purpose in this country, that purpose being to make Canada broader and happier than it is today.
I do not object to the Government lending financial assistance to a body which would meet, say, annually in one of the large cities of Canada to discuss generally questions of education as affecting all the provinces. But I cannot share the view that my hon. friend's object can be best served by creating a Federal Bureau of Education^


Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the debate so far with a great deal of interest. I join the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) in congratulating the mover of the resolution (Mr. Edwards) in that he has steered his ship this afternoon away from the rocks which have been the cause of so many difficulties from time to time in this House. The purpose of my rising, however, is to support the resolution, because as it is worded I can plainly do so. The resolution affirms that "in the opinion of this House, a Federal Bureau of Education should be established." If the resolution read, "that in the opinion of this House, a bureau to promote learning should be established," I would agree with the member for Beauce that in adopting such a resolution we might be encroaching upon provincial rights. The French language is more fortunate than the English in this connection, because it uses the word "instruction" as applying to that which pertains to imparting of knowledge, and "education" as applying to that which pertains to matters of the heart, of conscience, of duty, of citizenship.. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), having mixed to some extent the questions of instruction and education, has probably led my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) to come to the conclusion that the Federal Bureau which has been proposed might encroach on constitutional

rights. I agree with the hon. gentleman that the province of Quebec is causing a great deal of envy in the other provinces just now, and that it deserves credit for the attitude it has taken in recent times.
I also agree with him broadly that it is a result of education, and not the result of 'imparted knowledge. That it originates in this case from a certain section of the province of Quebec, is all the more to their credit. I know, as a matter of fact, that it has been the habit of the Roman Catholic church to teach its people, not as something they ought to have as learning, but as a part of their education, that not every man can be rich, not every man can be a philosopher, not every man can reach the highest grade of education, and if therefore through this teaching the people of the province of Quebec to-day are not susceptible to the emissaries who have created difficulty in other provinces of Canada and *all the world over, so much to the credit of the men who are responsible for that education. But that proves my case, and the case of the hon. member for Frontenac, that education is what we need, and that education which has been given to one province in that sense is needed in all the other provinces of the Dominion, not only in that one sense, but in many others. The unfortunate thing is that whenever we have a discussion or a conference on education and discuss educational systems and the effects education should have, we aire all more or less affected by a stroke of paralysis and indicate our weariness by the yawning of jaws. If by a system of education assisted by federal money, by a Federal Bureau-(you can place the bureau in any part of the Dominion you like so long as it will achieve the same results)- 'if by such a system you can prevent us having in the future nonconformists, for instance, who say that all should be nonconformists, socialists from saying to other socialists "You shall say there is no God," and people who say that we shall make Liberals out of Liberals and Tories out of Tories as a necessity, then a Federal Bureau of Education will have its use. Ruskin said:
" Education does not mean teaching- the people to know what they do not know; it means teaching them to behave as they do not behave."
, Dr. Johnson says:
Opinions once received are seldom recalled for examination. Having been once supposed to he right, they are never discovered to be erroneous.
This is as true of false opinions as of sound ones. The nation then, if wisely directed, will demand a national system of education whose main purpose is to produce good citizens, -attention to be given, not to what is to be taught so much as to what is to be caught; not to the amount learned by the child, so much as the thought acquired. All of us learn the facts and acquire the skill we need through life itself-Most of us learn by study, and not by teaching, or only by teaching as the result of study. Give a man an opportunity and he will easily learn. The difficulty lies in establishing a desire to study in the individual. It cannot be inculcated as it is infectious-. Create in the nation an emotional belief in education and the desire for education will arise. If our public schools have ideals of good form more than cold ambition for intellectual success, the result will be as it has been in England. "I will do it" promises the South American. "On the word of an Englishman?" inquires his friend. "Yes, on the word of an-Englishman." The public opinion of our public -schools is the medium through which, honest English spirit is most efficiently cultivated. We need as well a larger learning, fuller intellectual life, and a wider diffusion of every sort of skill.
Let -me give an instance of what I really mean by a Bureau of Education. It is taken from the annual report for 1913 of the chief medical officer of the Board of Education in England, page 237, wherein it is related how the children of the Hughes Fields Girls (Council School at Greenwich were taught the rudiments of cleanliness and decent living. The report says:
This school is situated in an extremely poor-part of Deptford. Indeed, the condition of the children attending the school was at one time so trying to those who came in contact with them, that the staff were constantly absent through illness. It became impossible to keep supply teachers more than a few days, and the attendance was freauently as low as 60 to 70 per cent for the whole year. Accordingly, nine years ago a new regime was introduced, con-sitting of lessons in hygiene, inspections, and doing things. The lessons may be imagined They were only given to the older children. The Inspections were daily; boots, clothes, hair, hands, nails, handkerchiefs, the basins and towels with which they washed, all were looked at, and the dirty and untidy were shamed by being put right in the presence of the class This was the real educational force. A new public opinion was created, and it was fostered by such exercises as tooh-brush drill, nailtrimming drill, and so forth. The children' were also asked at what hour they went to bed the previous night, and whether they had slept with an open window. The master of another large school invokes the aid of public opinion in the same direction by having a prepared blackboard

in each class room with spaces for the insertion of figures detailing the number present with clean boots, collars, nails, teeth, handkerchiefs and " open windows last night."
The result of this effort after nine years at the Deptford school is thus described:
The attendance now averages over 92 per cent, the' members of the staff are no longer frequently absent on sick leave, or desirous of obtaining new posts; the children now bear the closest inspection, and are able to progress normally in the ordinary subjects. Taking the school as a whole, the effect of these methods can be best seen by passing from the lowest class to the highest, thus starting with dirty teeth, bitten nails, unkempt hair and untidy clothes, we reach clean teeth, properly tended hands and hair, and neatly mended clothes. The happy air and healthy looks of the children make it hard to believe that this is actually a school of " peculiar difficulty." The children obviously love the school, and from being a place avoided by teachers it has become a field of happy and useful work.
Such are the results brought about by a healthy public opinion.
In many schools the children who systematically attend school with clean boots, clean collars, hair tidily done, teeth brushed, and who sleep with their windows open, are named " specials," and there is a great rivalry amongst them to be so classed.
That is an example of what I deem to be the business of a Federal Bureau of Education which forbids that I should annoy the House with any further illustrations, but as the Educational Conference held at Winnipeg has been referred to, let me point out to the hon. member for Beauee (Mr. Belaud) as well as to others, what that conference really understood by the question of Education.
Addresses were given on the following subjects: The moral and spiritual less ms of the war loi Canadian Education; The School and the Development of Moral Purpose; The Development of a National Character through Education; The Essential Factors in Education; Auxiliaries to the Schools in Moral Training; The Function of the Public School in Character Formation; Education and Reconstruction; The School and Industrial Relationships; The Relation of the School to Democracy; The School and the Newer Citizens of Canada; The Ethics of Christ in the Life of the Nation..
Will it be contended by the hon. member for Beauee (Mr. Belaud) or those who are opposed to the establishment of a Bureau of Education that any of these subjects which were discussed at that conference forms part of the curriculum of education in any province? These are subjects which are not taught except as part of the higher

courses in universities, and to the general public they < an only be imparted by example. The lessons which are to be conveyed by these subjects can reach the average student cr pupil only through the example of those who take the lead. Mr. Speaker, I think that the resolution as drafted is one that should receive the hearty support of this House. I had occasion last session to speak on the amount of money that has been expended by the Federal -Government in regard to matters that come entirely within the purview of the provinces, and if it is advisable for the Dominion Government to supply money for the purpose of assisting agriculture in the provinces there is just as grave reason why the Dominion Government should spend a considerable sum of money for any purpose that tends to the development of such a -national character as should exist in this country. We have a strong and virile people; we have health as -well as wealth. Let ns therefore have a keen, and clear sense of our national purpose.


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with close attention to the excellent speeches that have been delivered this afternoon upon this important subject, and with a great deal of interest to the arguments advanced in support of the resolution. Hon. gentlemen are to be congratulated on their efforts. I also listened with much interest to the arguments which were advanced in support of the resolution moved in this House about ten days ago by the hon. member for South Perth (M-r. -Steele). These two resolutions have very much in common, and I desire to 'associate myself with all that has -been said in support of them. Any movement that has for its ohject the improvement of the educational facilities for Canadianizing the foreigner, and improving our system of education throughout the Dominion of Canada, will have my enthusiastic support. No hon. member need 'apologize for supporting the resolution moved and so well presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). The resolution that, in the opinion of this House, a Federal Bureau of Education should be established at Ottawa, is a very broad one, and one that is comprehensive enough to include every possible phase of the educational problem. It includes the whole field of education in relation to the physical, the intellectual, and the spiritual development of the people. Any system that does not include these three phases of education

[DOT]would not 'be adequate to the needs of the country. The hon. member for Beauce .(Mr. Beland) made some remarks with regard to the spirit of intolerance, and stated that in the province of Quebec there was an absence of.that lamentable national defect. As a resident in Ontario I can honestly say that so far as that province is concerned there is not shortcoming in this respect.
It has been contended that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over matters of education within their boundaries. I believe that the provinces, under the terms of the British North America Act, have certain rights with regard to education- rights which it is in no way intended to infringe by the resolution now under discussion. I do not think there is any reason whatever to assume that the intention of the hon. member who has introduced this resolution is tlj,at there shall be any encroachment upon the powers conferred upon the various provinces by the British North America Act. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Meighen) said a few days ago that the provinces had certain rights in the matter of education, and in connection with this statement I desire to point out that we have a Federal Department of Public Health, although, according to the terms of the British North America Act, the provinces have jurisdiction in the matter of health. I supported the legislation which established the Federal Health Department because I believed it had a wide field of usefulness; but it does not interfere with the provinces, although it assists them in educating the people in the laws of health. Similar arguments can be advanced in support of this Federal Bureau of Education, which can also work in harmony with the provinces, and assist in co-ordinating a unifying system of education throughout the country. I believe it is essential to the future of Canada that we should have a unified system of education, 'with common text-books in all the public schools, in order that the children might grow up together with common sentiments and ideals, .and a common conception of national duty. This is an educational campaign. It has for its object the stability and progress of the Canadian people. It aims at concentrating the public mind on a national ideal that will unite the people in a common purpose, namely, the making of Canada into one of the greatest and foremost nations of the civilized world. This is an object that should receive the enthusiastic
support of every citizen who is loyal to the traditions of this Dominion.
Ever since the dawn of civilization, statesmen in every land have realized that one of the greatest factors in the stability and progress of any people is the influence exerted by educational institutions. Our universities, colleges, high schools, and more particularly the public schools are every day instilling inti} the minds of children those thoughts, ideals and aspirations which will influence their whole lives and have a powerful effect upon the future character of Canadian citizenship. If the Fathers of Confederation made any mistake in drafting the British North America Act, it was, I think, in relation to our school system. I have no desire, Sir, to be harsh in my criticism of the Fathers of Confederation. I have nothing but respect and honour for their memory, for I conceive them to be amongst the great men this country has produced. It goes without saying that they had the interest of Canada at heart. They did not realize-perhaps they could not realize-that this country of diversified character and climate, of vast distances and varying commercial interests, peopled of necessity by different races and creeds, would need some common bind, some steady unifying influence to cement together the various links in our long national chain. Our greatest need is a silken cord of education stretched across this country from Halifax to Vancouver, vibrating with a uniform national sentiment, permeating the atmosphere of every public school, instilling Canadianism into the minds of those various races and creeds amongst our budding population who, in the next generation will control the destiny of Canada.
There never has been a time in the history of this country when education of a national character was more essential to peace and progress than now. There is a national consciousness awakening in the mind of the people and the time is psychological for the launching of a great educational campaign.
At no time has there ever been a reason given to prove the need of education that does not exist intensified and accentuated to-day.
*Christianity has been spreading the Gospel education for 2,000 years, proclaiming it from thousands of pulpits, by thousands of eloquent divines and still the need exists as never before. This old world is just beginning to rub its eyes, awakening from its slumbers to. a realization of the truth. Awakening to the fact that truth and jus-

tiee, tempered with love, and supported by honour, is the only sure foundation for permanence.
In support of my contention in the cause of education, I would cite no less a personage than that of His Majesty, the King. I have before me a Canadian press despatch of July 31 last which is as follows:
His Ma jesty King George made another notable speech yesterday in replying to congratulations from a joint deputation of the London County Council and Non-conformist ministers at Buckingham Palace.
The King said: " The awakened consciousness of the nation demanded new developments and the removal of many grave defects in our social system. I am confident that our free and representative loyal institutions will be equal to the task.
" Let me recall to you some things that are specially within my thoughts.
" Of housing I have already spoken to representative authorities. I need only repeat my earnest desire that nothing will be left undone to meet the needs of the moment, and to realize those better ideals for the home life of our people which can alone make possible a real improvement in conditions. Great are the needs and great the opportunity. I am convinced also that nothing is more essential to national prosperity and happiness than education. The potentialities, physical, mental and spiritual, of every community should be developed to the fullest extent. A true education would embrace all these; would cultivate them all in due proportion, and would transform our national life in a generation."
I heartily endorse the sentiments expressed by His Majesty and I regard it as a sign that democracy is making progress when the most exalted personage in the world takes this attitude on the question of education. Long may His Majesty live to exert his exalted influence in the interest of the common people of his far-flung Empire.
The great danger of this country, and indeed of the whole world, is selfishness, individual and national. The great war with its ruthless force, its abhorrent brutality, its disregard of human suffering and of individual and national rights, has let loose a flood of evil, selfish passions that threaten to submerge and to annihilate the finer instincts of the human heart. We are still in the gloaming of that awful struggle that deluged the Continent of Europe with the blood of all the races of mankind. Tlie bitter wounds of outraged humanity are not healed and they find expression in the unrest and unjust demands of class and community. Society, the conventions, the moral and spiritual nature of the human race have been changed and we are groping about for a new standard of life. A new social order and a regenerated world are in the making. Never in our history did we
[Ml. .Andei-uon.]
have greater need for a wise guiding force to direct the minds of the people in a proper channel. Time is an element in the cure of all diseases whether of the individual or of the state, and time and wise educational remedies, if properly applied, will bring unity and peace out Of discord and strife.
The fundamental principle that underlies democracy is education. Democracy implies education since it is a government of thfe people by the people. If democracy must be made safe for the people then the people must be educated to be safe for themselves. Free peoples of the earth must be educated to understand the duties of good citizenship and the principles of responsible government, if democracy is to fulfil its mission and civilization stand the test of material progress. The group system of government towards which we are drifting is not democratic. The group system, as we have it in the province of Ontario, representative of a minority, is essentially autocratic. In this connection I would quote Bishop Bidwell, who in addressing the Anglican Synod in the city of Kingston, said:
Group System Not Democracy.
" The group selfishness, masking itself under so-called democratic forms of government, is little better than despotism. True democracy does not mean that the majority shall relentlessly impose its will upon the minority. It is the government of the people by their duly accredited representatives in the interests of the whole people, in which the rights of minorities and individuals are duly protected and observed. In the support of government of this kind the Christian spirit is of the utmost importance."
I might add to the statement of Bishop Bidwell that neither does democracy mean that the minority shall relentlessly impose its will on the majority. Minority rule is autocratic rule which controlled Ejirope for centuries. "A spirit of liberty"-said Chan-ning,-"is not as multitudes imagine a jealousy for our particular rights but a respect for the rights of others and an unwillingness that any one, whether high or low, should be,trampled under foot." This, Mr. 'Speaker, surely is or should be the spirit of democracy, but it is not the spirit of all those who shout in.the name of democracy. We have had ample evidence ' during the last five years to prove that those who shout loudest in the name of d mocraey are themselves autocrats at heart. Democracy to them is a license to do as they please, regardless of the rights and privileges of other. That was exemplified in the Winnipeg strike of last year. An

autocracy in the name of democracy usurped the will of the people. A minority, the minions of a class, ruled the city regardless of the rights and privileges of its citizens. The city was coerced into submission and civic and provincial government was defied. There was no rioting because the citizens submitted quietly to the abrogation of their rights and sought a refhedy by constitutional means. Such a condition was intolerable and could not long be endured, and both factions to the dispute are to he congratulated on the wise councils that prevailed. The ending of the Winnipeg strike is an eloquent tribute to the sanity and moderation of the Canadian people. Now that the parties concerned have been given a fair trial, found guilty and sentenced, I trust that the Department of Justice of the Dominion Government will not interfere with the sentence of the court.
Constitutional means, however, do not always prevail. Russia to-day is an example of democracy gone mad. It is a case of majority rule with vengeance as its motto. Democracy is so attenuated that each individual is an autocrat to the limit of his own physical powers. Pre-historie man has been resurrected and is running naked and vile in the heart of a 20th century civilization. Bolshevism is a leach that seeks its sustenance from the labour of others and breaks down all institutions of justice and order to fill its sordid stomach on the spoils of thrift. M. Erlich, a Frenchman and a Socialist, who was stationed at Petrograd as a member of the French Mission from August T7 to April '19 has this to say of Bolshevism:
I am and remain Socialist, and that is why I withdraw from a party which does not justify the title it bears, and which is sinking more and more into a Bolshevism, which is the savage negation of the Socialist ideal.
Mr. Erlich, a Socialist, has left his party on account of its sympathy with the ideal of Bolshevism. He may some day realize that socialism itself is a weed that thrives in the garden of indolence. Socialism would destroy initiative, and reduce all to the same level by depriving energy of the fruits of its labours. Such a system would put a penalty on thrift, and a premium on laziness. Socialism would arrive at its ideals by a system of paternal government which in a generation or two would produce a race of weaklings. As the people are, so is the nation. If the individuals of a race are weaklings amongst individuals, then the nation will be a weakling among nations. I would take this opportunity of warning the Government to resist the agitation for
paternal legislation. Such legislation will destroy initiative, individual independence, and self reliance which characteristics are a people's greatest asset in the pursuit of national greatness.
I am not in favour, Mr. Speaker, of too many restrictions being placed on individual liberty. You cannot make a people good by law; they cannot be made righteous by branding their follies as crimes. Legislation in advance of education and public sentiment is dangerous and defeats its own end. Neither am I in favour of legislation which tends to make certain classes wards of the state, which deprives them of the necessity of providing a living for themselves-it destroys .their independence and self-respect. Our laws, Mr. Speaker, should aim at producing men and women of independent minds who can stand erect and alone, working out their own emancipation from penury and want, by giving them equality of opportunity to develop the talents with which they have been endowed.
This leads us to the question of the alien population which is within our country, and forms a very important part of the people of the Dominion. In 1911, from the figures that I placed on Hansard last year, there were 752,732 alien people in this Dominion. Of these 303,680 came from the United States, and 370,389 from continental Europe. From 1912 to 1918, 603,468 foreign-born came into Canada front the United States, and.384,967 from continental Europe, so that at the end of 1918 we had in the Dominion 1,662,497 people who were born outside of the Dominion, that is, not British subjects. The most important problem for this country at the present time is the education an4 assimilation into the social and economic life of the alien people who have come here to live. This is a vital question which it is absolutely essential that the Dominion Government should grapple with and solve. In this connection, the Federal Bureau of Education would be of the utmost importance and could give material assistance to the Government in the solution of this very difficult problem.
We can learn much from the lessons of the Great War in relation to thid question. That great conflagration has cast a lurid glare on the deplorable conditions which existed and still exist in Europe. European radicalism makes it absolutely essential that we shall be more critical of the class of immigrants we admit to citizenship. We cannot any longer regard the immigrant simply from the economic point of view. We must take

cognizance of his political character and reputation.
Let us take a short glimpse of Europe as it is to-day after four and a half years of war and one and a half years of peace, speaking advisedly of the peace. There is a good deal of ebulition still in these disturbed countries. The tornado has passed and the international storm has subsided, but the waves'of discontent are still running high. There are signs, however, that the calm which should follow the storm may come in another year or two.
Illiteracy will mean inability to read and write in any language. You will admit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very low standard. In most of* the countries the age taken is ten years and over, although in one or two, the age limit is lower than ten. years. In Canada, for instance, we are rated as having 11.45 per cent of illiteracy over five years of age. Even in the West educated countries children between five and 10 years cannot be said to be able to read and write. I draw the attention of the Government to this rating in the hope it may be corrected. Inability to read and write in any language indicates that a person is unable to understand the written word and has no means of communication with his fellowman except by word of mouth.
The study of illiteracy the world over has some interesting features. It shows that people of northern climates are better edu- [DOT] cated than those of southern climates. People in warm countries have a higher percentage of illiteracy than those in the cold countries; that the dark races are more illiterate than the white; that brunettes are more illiterate than blondes and that women are more illiterate than men. These world-wide conditions are reflected in the conditions of a country. Take the United, States for instance which has a great variety of climate. We find there that the people living in the States having a warm climate are more illiterate than those in the colder states. It also shows that this applies to the white population as well as to the dark population; it also shows that the-women of the United States are more illiterate than the men, although the percentage of difference is less than in other countries. In America the sexes are more nearly on an equality in regard to illiteracy than in Europe.
In the continent of Europe, illiteracy is as follows:
Russia 69 per cent over ten years and 61.7 per cent of army are illiterate. Bixty-
two adult people out of every hundred are unable to understand the written word. They have no means of getting knowledge on any subject even on every day affairs, except by word of mouth. Stories oft repeated get wide of the truth. We ip this country depend upon our press and yet the press either wilfully or unintentionally does not always print what is correct.
Russia has the highest percentage of illiteracy amongst its adult population of any country in Europe. This is significant in view of the chaotic conditions of her internal affairs as the result of the war.
Take the Balkan states, that hot-bed of European wars, and we find that Turkey has no statistics, presumably because the country has not enough interest in education to compile statistics. The statistics for the other Balkan states are:
Roumania, 60.6 per cent over 10 years; 41 per cent of army illiterate.
Bulgaria, 65.5 per cent over 10 years; 25.4 per cent of army.
Greece, 57.2 per cent over 10 years; 30 per cent of army.
Serbia, 78-9 per cent over 7 years; 43-4 per cent of army.
Albania and Montenegro-No statistics.
These figures are illuminating. The Balkan states are continually embroiling Europe in their quarrels. The dense ignorance of the people renders them an easy mark for agitators and disturbers of the peace.
The Near Balkans.
Hungary, 33 per cent over 6 years; Illiterate.
Italy, 37 per cent over 10 years; 31 per cent of army.
Austria, 18 per cent over 11 years.
These percentages indicate high rate of illiteracy. There will be many people in these countries having no proficiency in education though not classed as illiterate. These people are a menace to the peace of Europe, and the League of Nations will have no success until they are educated to understand the principles of responsible government. They are not fit for democracy ; they are not ready to govern themselves. It is questionable if they will be good material to transplant into Canada. Are they desirable immigrants for this country?
Germany, .05 per cent of the army Illiterate.	.
Prussia, .02 per cent of the army illiterate.
Germany is in a class by herself; her people the victims of Kultur, were educated

for a particular purpose. From the cradle they were taught to have one ideal, and that ideal was not lost sight of in all branches of their educational system. With such a people in central Europe, educated for war, surrounded, by illiterate peoples, conflict was inevitable. The only marvel is that it was delayed so long. Germany, although in the midst of revolution which has swept her centuries old autocratic system of government from office, has accomplished it almost without bloodshed. This is a remarkable achievement, never before equalled in the history of the world.
It is an indication of the restraining influences of education upon the minds of the people in times otf great stress. .
Take the neutral nations of Europe, those in the immediate vicinity of the maelstrom of war, those nations that were not bound by entangling alliances compelling them to take part in the conflict and that were able to resist all influences to drag them into it.
Switzerland, .03 per cent of army illiterate.
Denmark, .02 per cent of army illiterate.
Sweden, .02 per cent of army illiterate.
The Netherlands, .08 per cent of army illiterate.
A remarkably high percentage of education exists in all these countries; they have the lowest percentages of illiteracy in the world. Almost all the people are able to understand the written word, and are thus capable of being informed on public affairs and restrained from excesses in times of stress.
From these figures and the conditions of social unrest and revolution in Enrope it is easy to draw conclhsions. The handwriting is plain on the wall. The uneducated peoples are running riot and perpetrating untold atrocities on each other. Life and property and t/he sanctity of the home have no protection. Woman is a slave; the subject of barter between sensual brutes. The animal propensities of the human race have gained ascendency over the intellectual and spiritual.
The League of Nations will have a large field for usefulness in assisting to have these people educated in the duties of good citizenship and the principles of responsible government. In fact a League of Nations might have a large field of usefulness in teaching the members of the American Congress the duties and necessities of peace. Those members have not been sufficiently impressed by the great tragedies of the war to be raised above the amenities of political strife. They are apparently more interested in discrediting their President than
they are in the necessity of bringing peace to a blood-spattered world.
Educationists in this country should view with alarm any large influx of peoples from amongst the illiterates of Europe. These illiterates should be scrutinized with the greatest care when coming into this country. It will be a difficult matter to keep out all undesirables; those, however who have grave physical and mental defects can be easily detected. The illiterate will present no difficulty, but some of those illiterates may be desirable citizens. Illiteracy is not synonymous with immorality and depravity. A stolid hard working man of moderate views and good common sense is much to be preferred to the smart propagandist.
This is where common sense and a natural human instinct will be invaluable in an immigration officer and will be a great service to this country. The educated agitators are the most dangerous, and they should be followed into their homes and, if engaged in spreading questionable doctrines, should be promptly deported. I have no sympathy with officials who treat these agitators leniently. They do not understand leniency and mistake it for timidity and fear of their class. Given a fair trial and proven guilty, they should be hustled out of the country without ceremony.
Not only do we need greater care in admitting the immigrant, but we must look after him better when he settles here. Let any honourable member of this House imagine himself an immigrant in a new country amongst an alien people unac* quainted with the language, depending upon his own labour for existence, ignorant of the customs and habits and laws of the country; open to deception, to fraud, and to ill treatment by designing persons and tell me if he would not follow any of his own people, even if he were an agitator. We cannot blame these people too much in their ignorance for paying heed to agitators in their own class. The remedy is, get rid of the agitator. Most of. these people are anxious to become good citizens if they knew how. They will, of course, have memories of their own lands and such is but natural; the longing of their hearts for friends and scenes of their youth cannot be stilled by law. You cannot change the current of the soul by Act of Parliament, they must be led to a higher plane of life by education. It is, therefore, important for our people to get alive to the problem of the new comer and organize for his protection and education and assimilation into

the life of the country; start from the day he lands to Canadianize him and follow him wherever he goes. Every community should have its committee to look after the alien. With regard to this alien question I would like to read a short passage, Mr. Speaker, from an article that appeared in a western paper, as follows:
There is a deep-seated conviction in the West that any man or woman who is dissatisfied with Canada as to he eternally comparing; it with their " fatherland " and preaching- sedition and intrigue, ought to be, and shall be, sent back to their dear fatherland, at their own expense if they have the money, and at the country's expense if they are broke. There has been ah impression among a good many pretty well-informed people in the West that deportation orders of this alien agitating class have not been as energetically conducted as they might have been, considering the dangerous element that centres around this element west of the lakes
In connection with the assimilation of these people, Mr. Speaker, I desire to quote from an article by Arthur Hamilton relative to conditions in the United States. He writes:
Of all the nationalities represented among the Immigrants in the United States the Germans are by far the hardest to make American.
Ludwig Fulda says in his " American Impressions;" "For children of German parents to speak German is to remain German."
Charles F. Amidon, one of the judges in the Western States, in sentencing a German agitator convicted of sedition, addressed his as follows:
I find that you received your final papers in 1898.	By the oath which you then took
you renounced and abjured all allegiance to Germany and to the Emperor of Germany, and swore that you would bear true faith and allegiance to the United States. Have you done that? No, you have not. You have, instead, cherished everything German, read German, prayed German, sung German. Every thought of your mind and every motion of your heart through all these years has been German. There have been a good many Germans before me in the last month; they have lived in this country like yourself, for ten, twenty, thirty, forty years, and they had to give their- evidence through an interpreter, because they could not speak English.
I want you to understand that when you take the oath of allegiance it means that you begin to sing American songs, read American history and open your life to American- influence. Instead of doing that, you have cherished German ideals and tried to make them everlasting."
This was the opinion of the judge in addressing this German citizen. The question is, shall we give these people who come into our country the franchise? Of course, they will get the privileges of the 
franchise in time, but I think that they should not receive the franchise until they have been given a good education, can speak and write the English language and have been taught to understand and appreciate the principles of democratic government. These people, coming as they do from European countries which have autocratic forms of government, cannot understand democracy, and we must make them understand it. There was a good deal in the remark made by the member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) during the course of his address on the resolution introduced by the member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) to the effect that the franchise should be conferred gradually on these people. First they should be given the municipal franchise; then when they come to be familiar with that, they can be given the provincial franchise, and finally the federal franchise. That would be a good way to enable them to understand the duties of citizenship and the responsibilities of the elector.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I may he pardoned if I wander from the subject under debate for a few moments to extend my congratulations to the architect, the contractor and workmen employed for the wisdom, skill and energy displayed in erecting this magnificent building." As a building of its kind, for the purpose intended, perfect in proportion, stately in design, solid in structure, , elegant in workmanship, complete in detail and unsurpassed in dignified grandeur, it will stand for centuries as a monument to the skill of the workmen and the sagacity and vision of the Canadian people.
This assembly room, generous in proportions and beautiful in adornment, will serve as an inspiration to future generations of Parliamentarians to put forth the best that is in them. Tt will inspire members of Parliament to greater oratorical effort and higher statesmanship. A member rising to address you, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, will have instinctively impressed upon him the great responsibility and dignity of the office which he holds. He will realize that in speaking here he is addressing not the members of Parliament and the citizens in the gallery, but great Canadian people. It will help him to realize that he represents more than the citizens of the small constituency who are responsible for his presence in this House. It will help him to realize that he is a representative Canadian, a citizen of a great country just beginning to extend its influence beyond its shores into the sisterhood of nations.

If I might venture a criticism of this Chamber, I would voice my disappointment in its acoustic properties. I am fearful that my voice cannot penetrate with distinctness into the farthermost reaches of this spacious hall. There are so many nooks and corners, so many projections and cavities, so much space to fill,' that it seems impossible for one small voice adequately to fill the void without those artificial aids of arched domes and round corners to intensify sound.
Taken as a whole, this stately edifice, the product of the brain and handicraft of man, is a work of art, vying for supremacy over the beautiful in nature which has been so lavishly bestow-ed on this picturesque section of the Dominion of Canada.
The building itself is a liberal education in Canadian history, and will serve to keep alive and to perpetuate those traditions of life and character which are the foundation of a nation's greatness.
Members on both sides of this House have expressed themselves on the question of Canadian unity and deplored' its absence between the two predominating races in this country. Unity is absolutely essential to the future progress of the Canadian people, and this building will lend itself admirably as a factor in- that unity. Parliament is the greatest educational influence we have for the building up of a sound, sane, progressive citizenship. The people of this country look to the members of Parliament for leadership on all lines connected with the national welfare. They are expected to be alive to our possibilities, conscious of the potentialities of the national domain, interested in human progress and ready to defend and to maintain those institutions of Government that are the people's guarantee of national life, liberty and progress. The. foundation of a nation's greatness is the mentality of its people. A sane mind in a sound body, morally clean and spiritually pure, is the highest type of human being.
Take such a people as I have described, place them on the northern half of the American continent, under the influence of its climate, surrounded by its wealth of forest, field and mine; educate them in the arts, the science and the duties of citizenship, and in less than a century you will have a people that will extend their influence to the four corners of the earth, and that influence will be for the general benefit of mankind. We have here a country which is unsurpassed in natural wealth, waiting only the brain and the hand to
unlock its stores. It is the duty of the Canadian people to prove themselves worthy of their great heritage. It is the duty of this Parliament to prove it has the wisdom, the vision and the initiative to point the way that will start Canada on the road to her high destiny.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the resolution which is before the House will be very brief indeed. It is not my intention to dwell upon the necessity of education in any country, nor do I intend to speak on the merits or demerits of the educational facilities in the various provinces of this country. The ht>n. gentleman (Mr. Anderson) who preceded me, spoke eloquently of the needs of greater education in the world, referring especially to the conditions created by the various new doctrines such as Bolshevism, and so forth, and I agree with what he said in that respect. At no time in the history of the world has a sound education been more needed than at present. He even suggested that the League of Nations should look after the education of the peoples of the world. That only shows how hard it is, once we start infringing upon the constitution, to know where to stop. The mover of the resolution (Mr. Edwards) wants the Federal Parliament to , have a say in educational matters. His seconder (Mr. Anderson) wants the,League of Nations to have a say in these matters. For myself I would just as soon have the League of Nations control education in this country as have the Federal Parliament control it, because the Treaties of Peace have shown that the protection of national minorities is well looked after by the various statesmen of the world-better than it has been in many instances in this country. However, it is not my purpose to dwell on that phase of the question.
The British North America Act was an agreement between various British colonies which on certain questions had diverse interests, diverse views, diverse feelings and diverse opinions. Indeed, these diversities were so great that it was thought at one time they would constitute an insuperable obstacle to the final consummation of Confederation. No question perhaps was more mooted than that of education, and it is

quite natural that it should be so, because on the question of education are always dependent all matters relating to race, language and religion. Men there were in my own province belonging both to the Catholic majority and to the English-speaking Protestant minority who viewed with fear and alarm the provisions of the British North America Act, and it is a matter of history that the provisions of the educational clauses of that Act guaranteeing the protection of minorities as to denominational schools were placed in the Act at, the special request of the English-speaking minority of the province of Quebec. At all events, the matter of education was left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, subject to a certain limitation. Section 93 of the British North America Act reads in part as follows:
In and for each province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions :-
1. Nothing in any such lavs' shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the Union.
Subsections 2, 3 and 4 give the remedy for a minority which might be pressed in the enjoyment of their privileges. With that understanding Confederation was agreed to. The British North America Act was an agreement between various British colonies by virtue of which those colonies agreed to surrender to a central power-the Federal Parliament-some of their powers and rights, and those colonies reserved to themselves certain other powers and rights which are specifically enumerated in the British North America Act. Education ,is one of those matters which were specifically and emphatically reserved. I am sure that no hon. gentleman in this House will challenge my statement when I say that without this reservation with regard to education, Confederation would never have been achieved. ^
I also make the statement, and submit the proposition, that the provinces within the limit of their jurisdiction are as supreme in their authority as this Parliament within the sphere of its jurisdiction, as supreme even as the Imperial Parliament. Within the limit of their jurisdiction they have absolute home rule, and they will continue to have it, notwithstanding any hon. gentlemen's efforts to the contrary.


John Wesley Edwards: I did not quite catch what the hon. gentleman said. Was he referring to me in his remark "notwithstand-

ing any hon. gentleman's efforts to the contrary?"


Ernest Lapointe: No, I was speaking in a general way. I desire to quote the words of Mr. Justice Riddell, who is certainly a constitutional authority, to be found at page 99 of his volume "The Constitution of Canada." He is quoting words used by himself in the case of Smith vs. city of London:
The powers of the legislature of the province are the same in intension, though not in extension, as those of the Imperial Parliament. The legislature as limited in the territory in which it may legislate and in the subjects; the Imperial Parliament is not-that is the whole difference. .	.	. The power and jurisdiction of
Parliament is so transcendent and absolute that it cannot be confined either for causes or persons within any bounds.
I could quote the opinion of many other judges, but I shall content myseif with giving the words of Lord Carnarvon in 1875. This House had sent an address to Her Majesty the Queen asking he. to make certain representations to. the Legislature of New Brunswick with regard to certain educational difficulties in that province, and here is the answer made by Lord Carnarvon, who was then British Secretary of State for the 'Colonies. The words will be found in Todd's "Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies," page 462:
He could only express a strong hope that the ruling majority in New Brunswick might be disposed so to exercise their undoubted rights as to remove all reasonable causes of complaint, and so avoid the " serious inconvenience of bringing under public discussion in the Dominion Legislature a controverted question which may possibly engender much heat and irritation, and over which it has no jurisdiction."
What is the only* conclusion that must be drawn? It is that the Federal Parliament has no authority in educations! matters other than those conferred upon it by section 93 of the British North America Act.	The powers of such a Federal
Bureau of Education as proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards), to remain ' within the jurisdiction of this Parliament would be confined to dealing with the legislatures of the various provinces respecting the rights and privileges of the religious minorities with regard to denominational schools. Surely that is not the aim and intention of my hon. friend. It is certainly not that which he seeks to remedy.
I would ask my hon. friend from Fron-tenac why he comes back here every session with a resolution which he knows cannot be accepted by this House? Last year his resolution was in favour of the

establishment of a national system of nonsectarian schools. That resolution could not be adopted without leading to the disruption of Confederation. His resolution this year does not go quite so far; it is not a direct but a flank attack, but it is just as much against the jurisdiction of this Parliament and against the constitution of Canada as was his resolution last year. What purpose is my hon. friend wishing to serve? A few weeks ago, in connection with a resolution on the Order Paper asking for an amendment to the British North America Act to give this Parliament extra-territorial jurisdiction for its laws, it was suggested in this House that we should ask an amendment to the constitution of Canada to enable this Parliament to amend its own constitution with the unanimous consent of the provinces. I think that principle is a sound one. This great country cannot forever be crossing the sea for the purpose of begging small, petty amendments to the constitution, with reference, for instance, to the superannuation of a judge, or other matters of like importance. Our constitutional level must be as high as that of South Africa or Australia. I repeat, I think the principle is sound. But various authorities objected to the proposal among them being the Attorney General of Quebec, in a telegram which was published in the newspapers. Why should it be so? Simply because there are men in this country who seem to be anxious to regard treaties, agreements and pledges as mere " scraps of paper," and because those who have something to protect are determined that they will not relinquish that protection which is conceded them by the Imperial Parliament. I repeat that I would personally be in favour of any suggestion to give to this country the right to amend its own constitution. But proposals such as that which my hon. friend from Fiontenac (Mr. Edwards) puts forward would block the way of Canada in any request which she might make for greater autonomy, and would only serve to strengthen in many people the resolve not to part with the guarantee which they have through the Imperial Parliament. The hon. gentleman states that this Federal Bureau would not encroach upon the rights of the provinces. Well, Sir, in my opinion, which I think is a sound one, the mere establishment of such a bureau would constitute an undoubted infringement of the rights of the provinces. It would be exactly the same as if the Imperial Parliament should try to establish a bureau to control our trade &nd our immigration laws under the pretense that it did not infringe our rights in these matters. Would any Canadian tolerate such an act as that? We would not; and i say that the provinces will not stand for any supervision such as that proposed by my hon. friend.	-


John Wesley Edwards: Does my hon. friend
state that this resolution proposes a supervision or control in regard to matters of education?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not- see what other object it can have. The bureau would have some work to do, it would have some purpose to achieve and it could hot achieve that purpose without exercising control or supervision over the work of the provinces. My hon. friend stated as a precedent the fact that this Parliament granted money towards the improvement of the roads, towards the development of agriculture, and for purposes of that kind. Well, I am not surprised at that. If hon. members will look up Hansard they will see that when these matters were under discussion in the House I for one predicted that some one later on would contend that the legislation then going through the House would establish a precedent that would enable this Parliament to interfere with the rights of the provinces in the matter of education. It was wrong for Parliament to interfere with those matters, but hon. members opposite at that time were emphatic in the assertion that they had nothing to do with education and that our fears in that respect were without any foundation. Events, however, have shown who were right. The hon. member gave us the United States as an example in the matter of education, and informed us that there was in that country a Federal Bureau of Education that achieved remarkable success. Of course, our situation is by no means identical with that of the United States; there is a certain difference between the conditions as they are in the two countries. But speaking only from the point of view of results, does my hon. friend not know that the fact was established that 34 per cent of the American soldiers who enlisted could neither read nor write? Is that the " great success " which he says has been achieved by the National Bureau of Education in the United States? I think that Canada's record in this respect is much higher than that of our neighbours to the south of us. One more remark, Mr. Speaker, and I shall conclude. My-hon. friend spoke of the desirability

of national unity. In this wish I heartily join.


John Wesley Edwards: Before the hon. member proceeds, may I enquire of him as to the source of his authority for the statement that 34 per cent of the American soldiers were illiterate?


Ernest Lapointe: I read the statement
in the American newspapers at the time of its publication.


Mr. BUREAU:: And it was not denied.


Ernest Lapointe: I say, Mr. Speaker,
that I am in complete sympathy with the statement that it is desirable for us to attain national unity. But the only way in which we can secure that unity is by respecting the rights, feelings and privileges of our fellow citizens in this country. There are questions upon which we are bound to disagree. It has been the decree of Providence that this country should be inhabited by people of various races and creeds. We cannot avoid that condition of things. We must face and accept it, and we must accept it in a spirit of tolerance, charity and good-will. Let my hon. friend and myself let all good citizens in this country, agree to disagree on these questions. It is not necessary that we should have identical opinions on all questions; it is impossible for us to agree on some of them. I do not hope, nor have I the presumption to believe, that it is possible to convince my hon. friend that he is wrong in his way of thinking and that I am right, and I give him my word of honour that he will not convince me that he is right in the opinions he has expressed.


William Cameron Edwards: I will not try.


Ernest Lapointe: Let us both agree to
disagree on that point, and we may be good Canadians, both of us, as our children will be, notwithstanding that they may differ on some questions. Mr. Speaker, let us build in this country an adamantine wall against prejudice and intolerance. Let us respect one another's opinions and convictions, and in the name of common sense, at this particular period of our history, let this Federal Parliament confine its attention to those matters that are peculiarly within its province; for I believe that it has enough affairs of its own, affairs within the limits of its own jurisdiction, without going outside those limits and endeavouring to do the work of the provinces.
Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle)-:	I
am not sure whether I am altogether pleased with the statements that have been
[Miy E. Lapointe.]
made on both sides of the House that there is no intolerance in Quebec, and none in Ontario. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I should be delighted to be able thoroughly to believe this. I am afraid that if some of the things we hear in this House can be regarded as indicating the spirit that exists in these two provinces some of our hon. friends are somewhat off the mark. Tolerance and mutual love are great virtues, and perhaps there is an exceeding love for one another in the hearts of hon. gentlemen in this House, but unfortunately that love is not exemplified in any convincing manner. I sincerely trust that a spirit of broad tolerance will grow up in this country, and when we have sufficient regard for the feelings and interests of one another our differences will not form any barrier between us. When the discussion began I was somewhat doubtful about the advisability of establishing a Federal Bureau of Education. As the debate progressed, however, I brought thought and argument to bear upon the subject, and now I can say that that doubt no longer exists. I fail to see that the establishment of a Federal Bureau will be the danger to provincial institutions and rights which some hon. members seem to fear it will be. If we attempted to form a bureau its operations would be ultra vires if it sought to control the educational system of any province. The bureau would have no more control over education than any Act of this Parliament which might attempt to dispose of lands of the different provinces. I think my hon. friend from Quebec will agree with this view. Now, if that is so, what danger is there? If we cannot do any harm what danger does any hon. gentleman foresee?


Jacques Bureau: Why have a useless
thing?


Joseph Archambault: What is the use of doing something that will be ineffectual?


Mr. THOMSON:: If my hon. friends will permit me, I shall answer them in a moment. I am trying to show that there can be no harm in the establishment of a bureau. There may be some use of doing it. I am not such a great worshipper of absolute uniformity as some of my hon. friends on the other side are. I do not believe we will ever get absolute uniformity; I do not know whether it is necessary to have absolute uniformity in our educational affairs. But if we had some institution which we could all respect, to which we could all look up, it might bring us a little closer together on this and some other

points, and I am not sure but that a little more uniformity in education and in some other material respects-I do not mean in everything-might be useful. I think it would be. My hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) knows that an effort has been made to try and get a little more uniformity in the laws in the different provinces. I do not think it would be well to insist upon absolute uniformity all round, but I think that the effort which has been made to have more uniformity, unity and general agreement than there has been in the past is a good thing.
The bureau would have no absolute powers of control, all their powers should be advisory or dn the way of consultation, and if we could have some medium whereby we might have consultation among the leading educationalists of the different provinces, the result could not but be beneficial. We have men in Saskatchewan, I believe, who would come here and perhaps give some pointers to our friends in Ontario and Quebec, and I have no doubt that our friends in Ontario and Quebec would give some pointers in return. If this bureau did nothing else but bring these men together occasionally and have a systematic discussion of these subjects, I believe, it would do good. I see the advantages and I fail to see the disadvantages. I fail to see that there is any absolute danger. Therefore, I think there would be no harm in trying it and possibly there would be much good. Of course, the question comes up as to whether or not the Government are disposed to vote the necessary sum of money for the purpose. If the Government were [DOT] not disposed to do so I would be very loth to urge them to do so in view of the financial condition of the country. But I think it is well worthy the consideration of the Government; it does not seem to me that the sum required would be very large.
There is one other observation that 1 will have to make in a little while with regard to some of the things which might be done by such a body. The term "bureau" is a very elastic one. It does not necessarily mean a body which will have control over education. The Weather Bureau does not pretend to have any control over the weather, but it is a quite useful institution; and in the same way, I believe, a Buieau of Education might be a useful institution although it might not attempt to control education in the different provinces.
I would not have risen but for one fact. The question comes up here frequently of 89
Canadianizing the so-called foreigner. 1 am not very much in love with the term "foreigner" but still I shall use it for want of a better term. I believe that is one thing that such a bureau might possibly deal with. Just what would be done I am not prepared to say, but at least we would have through that bureau a way of getting together men from the different provinces and men of different nationalities or extractions. I have had letters from a Presbyterian clergyman in my constituency who is a pure-bred Hungarian and who ministers to the Hungarian congregation on that line. That man is tremendously anxious that something should be done. He sees the need amongst his own people. He fears that if we do not get together and make a united effort to better conditions they are going to be worse instead of better. I know a great many thoroughly well-educated, up-to-date men, of European nationality-enemy nationality, if you like, -in my constituency. They are well-read, well-posted men who could give us some assistance.
I am afraid that we approach this subject with the idea that all the wisdom is centred within ourselves and that these men have none of it, that we have to teach them. If we would approach them with the idea not only that we can teach them something but that they can teach us something we might get somewhere. The sooner we give up the idea that we know it all and that these men know nothing the sooner we will be in a position to do something in the direction of making these people good citizens of the country. We have been told that the foreigner would respond to our appeal. The foreigner will respond to our appeal, and very readily, if we make that appeal in the proper spirit. If we are going to make it in that spirit of hate that we see manifested in this House sometimes, we are not going to gain much. We had better get clear of that feeling right now. If we are going to teach these people true Canadianism we must make a beginning by showing them that we have the spirit of true Canadianism within ourselves.' If we have not the spirit of democracy and of brotherhood, which should be the basis of Canadian nationality, amongst ourselves, the farther away we keep from these people the better. We must have the proper spirit within ourselves. Then, we are in a position to teach them something.
A great many people have told us at different times in this House that they have



been teachers. The hon. gentleman who introduced this motion (M?. Edwards) to-ld us that he bad been a teacher. There are quite a number of gentlemen in this House who have been teachers, and I am satisfied that if a census were taken it would be found that a majority of the members had at some time been either teachers of public schools or trustees of school hoards. Let us take the trustees. I have had some experience. I know that when we undertook to engage teachers we wanted to find out what these teachers knew; we wanted t-o have reports from people who knew not only what their educational qualifications were but what sort of people they were- their characters. One of the first things that it was necessary to find out was Whether the applicant for appointment as a teacher was a lover of children. The school board took the ground that unless the teacher had a fondness for children, it did not want to know anything about him. I think a school board is very foolish to engage a teacher Who has not a fondness for children. Applying this principle to the question now under discussion I would say that unless we have some love ot fondness for the people whom we undertake to teach we will never teach them anything of importance. We must get into sympathy with those people, with their feelings, their aspirations, their difficulties and their hopes, before we can hope to teach them anything worth while.
These are the few suggestions I wanted to make and I do not think I have anything further to say. I want to emphasize, however, that I see no reason at all why we should fear the formation of such a bureau, for the very good reason that the bureau would not have any power to do the things which we appear to fear it would do.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. .Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to my hon. friend from Prontenac (Mr. Edwards). He said, several times, during the course of his most impartial address, that we khould profit by the lesso'na of the war. I see, Sir, that he has taken the lesson unto himself. It has been discovered that a frontal attack on a strongly entrenched position is, on almost all occasions, disastrous. Therefore my hon. friend has taken it upon himself to proceed by way of a flank attack and an encircling movement, and in his endeavour to reach the province of Quebec he has brought us through the prairies almost to the foot of the Rockies. In other years, he has been anore,-shall I say?-imprudent and has
FHr. Thomson.]
come to the attack directly. This year, as I have already stated, he intends to proceed by way of a flank attack. However, there is no doubt in my mind that whatever may be the purport of his words his intentions are the same as heretofore, and his resolution, if accepted, would be but the driving of the thin edge of the wedge into the block of our Constitution.
The resolution calls for the creation ol a National Bureau of Education, and to my mind such a body, unless it were to become absolutely useless, would exercise some form of control over all the provinces. iSpeaking as the representative of a constituency of the province of Quebec, I say we do not desire it, that we do not need it. Our own education system is efficient;
, it is satisfactory to us, and should we need to change or improve it we have within our own province the machinery necessary for that purpose. A backward glance will show that after centuries of experience we have evolved a system which, though not incapable of improvement, compares favourably with that of any other at present existing.
History tells us that when the foundations of permanent settlement were laid, the authorities at Quebec, with the approval and assistance of the French Government, endeavoured by every possible means to promote civilization of the Indians and the intellectual development of the inhabitants. The first boys' school was founded at Quebec .by the Jesuits in 1635; and it should be a matter of pride to all Canadians that a year later-fully a year before the legislature of Massachusetts had decided upon the establishment of Harvard, . -there was in the city of Quebec a classical college. In 1642 the Ursulines founded a girls' boarding school in Quebec. In 1657 we read that the heroic Marguerite Bour-geoys had a school for boys and girls in Montreal. In 1666, we learn, the Montreal Sulpician school was started by the voluntary contributions of the inhabitants. In 1681 there was in full swing at Sillery, a short distance from the city of Quebec, a school devoted to the instruction of the Indians. In the early days of the eighteenth century, schools subsidized by church and state, and aided by enlightened benefactors and testators, spread over the settled parts of the province with great rapidity. All this was put an end to by the conquest when, under the English regime, the religious orders who had hitherto supplied the greatest number of teachers were forbidden to receive members from abroad and

F ri
to recruit novices from within the confines of the colony. The property of these reverend gentlemen was, in many cases alienated and the schools closed. Primary and -secondary education was completely disorganized and the ancient inhabitants of the country, aware of the disastrous results of such a system, in 1763 sent in a long series of petitions in which they prayed for public instruction, to which, in their own words, they "hold faster than life itself." -An attempt was made early to control education under a body known as the Royal Institute for the Advancement of Learning. Its real purport, hidden under a pretense of good-will, was to take away the right of teaching from the Canadians, and to establish an educational monopoly, guaranteed by the executive of the English church and paid for by the French-Catholic population, for the upkeep of Protestant and neutral schools. This met with very little success since the native population preferred to keep their children unlettered rather than to trust them to the tender mercies of teachers alien in tongue and in religion. In 1824 the legislature carried the law of Fabrique schools, by which the Fabriques were authorized to devote certain portions of their income to the foundation of a school in each parish. This was more or less satisfactory till in 1859, an -Educational Council, composed of eleven Catholics and four Protestants, was established. In 1875 the constitution of this body was modified by dividing it into two separate and independent religious committees, thus giving to the minority complete control over their own schools. This is the basis of our present system which we are proud to say is highly satisfactory. To quote the words of Dr. Parmalee of the Protestant Council of Instruction :
From this clear recognition oj the necessity, in the interests both of harmony and efficiency, to give the right of separate action, the freedom of control has gradually extended until the Protestant population finds itself in an enviable position in this regard.
Although the British North America Act guaranteed the minority only what it had in 1867, yet its rights and privileges have grown more since that date than previously. An appeal to the sense of justice and fair-play of the majority has produced results which merit praise.
If the minority have no reason for complaint what possible excuse can outsiders have for interference? As for the religious majority, not only are -they satisfied, but any change would be met with the most 89i	j | [DOT] jj
strenuous opposition. For, rightly or wrongly, we firmly believe that religion is the basis o-f all true education, that without religion there can be no morality, and. that all the learning in the world will not produce a good citizen unless he feels himself bound by the sanction of the law ot God as well as that of man. "If you haven't developed a conscience your learning has been in vain; you have furnished arms and armour for that which is evil."
To this theory we adhere most tenaciously. This doctrine we are ready to uphold with all our energy and strength, and we will not-we cannot-alter in any degree an opinion so -well considered and so deeply implanted in our hearts. Shall we be -forced, as are our co-religionists in the United States, to yearly spend millions of dollars over and above the amounts contributed to the state school in order that our children shall receive that instruction which we firmly believe to be an essential preparation to the attainment of -the ideals of good citizenship? Besides, the experience of other nations teaches us that Godless education invariably fails to produce the best results. The lesson of Imperial Rome should not be forgotten. Civilized and cultured as -she was, when atheism became the rage the -finer virtues of the race disappeared and the land of hardy warriors and upright statesmen -became the plaything of the licentious potentate and the debauched tyrant.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does the hon. gentleman mean AVestern Rome or Eastern Rome?


Charles Gavan Power: I mean Western Rome?


John Hampden Burnham: Because Eastern Rome was wrecked by the rows among the church people themselves.


Mr.   POAVER@: I am now speaking of
Western Rome. Until, having rotted from within, the shell of empire burst -and its fairest territories and its wealthiest cities became the spoil of the crudest and most brutal barbarians. -Germany, too, attempted to substitute fcr the worship of the Divinity of that of the State. The Fatherland became a -fetish on its behalf, and to further its greatness anything was permissible, even laudable, from the violation of treaties to the murder of helpless women and children. Here, too, a mighty organization- the -mightiest the world has ever known- collapsed under the strain of defeat, and secular authority, hitherto revered with a superstitious awe, having disappeared,

nothing remains to save the country from anarchy and chaos.
In the United States patriotism taught in the schools to the exclusion of religion has become an empty uninspired thing- almost a mere matter of flag-waving and fourth of July fireworks. The politicians control the schools, vote-getting has become more important than morality, material success in this life more to be desired than spiritual happiness in the next. Time does not permit me to quote opinions and statistics showing the failure of the public schools to produce in that country that which at this time it is in most need of-honest, upright, God-fearing citizens, but I have here an article by Harold Bolce published in the Cosmopolitan magazine in 1919, entitled "Blasting at the Rock of Ages." I do not wish to quote the article itself, but the editor's note, which is fully borne out by the facts cited, says:
This is the first of a series of three articles by .Mr. Bolce, who has now completed a study of American colleges extending over two years. What Mr. Bolce sets down here is of the most astounding character. Out of the curricula of American colleges a dynamic movement is upheaving ancient foundations and promising a way for revolutionary thought and life. Those who are not in close touch with the great colleges of the country will be astonished to learn the creeds being fostered by the faculties of our great universities. In hundreds of classrooms it is being taught daily that the decalogue is no more sacred than a syllabus; that the home as an institution is doomed; that there are no absolute evils; that immorality ' is simply an act in contravention of society's accepted standards; that democracy is a failure and the Declaration of Independence only spectacular rhetoric; that the change from one religion to another is like getting a new hat; that moral precepts are passing shibboleths; that conception of right and wrong are as unstable as styles of dress; that wide stairways are open between social levels, but that to the climber children are incumbrances; that the sole effect of prolificacy is to fill tiny graves; and that there can be and are holier alliances without the marriage bond than within it. These are some of the revolutionary and sensational teachings submitted with academic warrant to the minds of hundreds of thousands of students in the United States.
Such, then, is the teaching imbibed by youth at its most susceptible stage; can we wonder that these theories obtain large circulation and that high honour and enthusiastic support await those so-called "daring spirits" who rail at convention and scoff at morality?
But it is not necessary to wander so far afield. Our own public schools of Ontario are not so entirely spotless that we should accept similar institutions without the most searching inquiry. I quote from an article

which recently appeared in a well-known newspaper. It is entitled "Depravity in Canadian Schools," and reads:
Declaring our public schools were nurseries for budding criminals, Dr. C. K. Clarke, Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Toronto, told 800 teachers in convention at Saskatoon last week that upon them fell the duty of saving the race from juvenile delinquency; Speaking particularly of knowledge brought to his attention in Toronto public schools, Dr. Clarke mentioned incidents of thirteen-year-old girls being unmarried mothers, and others of the same age commencing lives of shame. He said that even students of sociology would be shocked with the worst cases which had come to his attention. Even at the tender ages of twelve and thirteen girls were found suffering from venereal diseases. Boys, too, he added, were found who had acquired habits associated by most people with only the most hardened moral perverts. He ascribed feeble-mindness as the biggest contributory factor.
This is not quoted from the Catholic Register, nor from L'Action Catholique, nor from Le Devoir, nor from Le Droit; it is quoted from that martial sheet, that mirror of justice-the Orange Sentinel.
I had intended also dealing with the question of national education from the standpoint of bilingualism, but that I think can be safely left to my colleagues whose eloquence in a language not their own is the clearest vindication of their stand. I have this to say, however. The use of one language only in the state is no more necessary than the practice of one religion and one religion only. The Hindu and the negro within the British Empire may be taught in their own several languages. Are we to refuse the same right to the Canadian of French descent? Moreover, the verdict of history is against you. The inhabitants of Alsace-Lorraine were persecuted for the sake of the language, and today the civilized world counts the sacrifices of countless lives as worth the price of its rehabilitation.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. gentleman say that he does not approve of the theory of having any one religion in the country?


Charles Gavan Power: I am very much afraid that the hon. gentleman misunderstood me. I stated that the teaching of one language was no more necessary to the State than the practice of one religion, and one religion only.


John Hampden Burnham: Which way is it-is it necessary or not necessary?


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman
wants a multiplicity of religions.


Charles Gavan Power: I am afraid my hon.
friend (Mr. Burnham) speaks for himself. If he has not understood the passage in the sense I wished to convey, I will be only too pleased later to discuss it with him at any length. But I imagine that other hon. members have grasped that which I wished to convey.
The Polish language was proscribed, yet to-day the Parliament of Canada guarantees by solemn treaty that never again will it be interfered with. The Irish, robbed of their native Gaelic, have learned to express their loathing of the oppressor in the classical language of Milton and Shakespeare. To deprive the French-Canadians of their rights guaranteed by treaty and sanctified by tradition would be a repudiation of the most sacred obligations of the British Crown. The London Times of 24th March, 1920, in a leading article dealing with a speech delivered by Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, at a complimentary dinner tendered him by the Empire Parliamentary Association, after declaring that there is no analogy between the cases I have just cited, says:
But with that reservation it seeme to us that the existence of two languages in the Dominion, and their encouragement by teaching in the schools, should be a source of strength and not of weakness. Belgium has two languages, Switzerland and, we may add, the United Kingdom, have three, and no one in these countries is a penny the worse.
Other considerations of no less importance occur to us in studying this question. The expense connected with the organization of a national system or even of an innocuous Board could hardly be justified. The present disastrous state of our finances does not permit us to indulge in the luxury of costly useless experiments.
The disorganization involved in the destruction of an old system and the inauguration of a new one would in all probability deprive the children of one or two generations of the benefits of any education whatever, and we must all admit that it is within the next few years that Canada's greatest trial is to come and unless our people are prepared to face the future strong in the sanity of our growing generation we may expect to be defeated in the struggle.
Without attempting to pose either as a great historian or as a constitutional authority, I am convinced that without section 93 of the British North America Act-that dealing with education-the Confederation pact would never have been entered into and that its violation would be equivalent to the denunciation of the whole bargain to such an extent that any of the parties thereto could and should consider themselves free to return to their original status. Such a rupture is unthinkable and could not but entail the most disastrous consequences.
I wish to treat this subject from the standpoint of Canada as a whole, and it is with that end in view that I ask that this resolution be not pressed, that the House be not divided. I have stated some of our reasons for opposing even the slightest encroachment on our rights. Suffice it to say that we hold our autonomy in educational matters as a thing sacred and. beyond recall. We cannot agree to relax one jot, to change one comma of our Magna Charta. Surely the hon. gentleman does not desire to open once more in this country the floodgates of racial and religious strife, to make us a prey to the devastating flame of sectional intolerance. We give him credit for the honesty of his convictions; let him respect ours. We desire nothing except to be left alone. Cannot he find in this country of ours other spheres of activity, other conditions more in need of his reforming zeal? Let him remember that we on this side of the House are his countrymen. In fact the name which he so proudly attributes to himself to-day, that of Canadian, -was first applied as a term almost of derision by his ancestors to the forefathers of a number of gentlemen now sitting around me. I, too, am a Canadian, simple and unhyphenated. My affections are centred in this land and I neither owe nor own allegiance to any other country. I am not even a French-Canadian, though I may say in passing that the kindly treatment meted out by. a generous people to my exiled forefathers and generations of their descendants have led me to sympathize with my fellow-citizens of French descent in their struggle to keep their national status intact to such an extent that my best energies will always be devoted to that end. It is because I am a Canadian and because I have a passionate belief, almost sublime faith in our future destiny, that I take this matter so much to heart. To my mind anything which interferes with the development of national unity and the propagation of broad, true Canadianism is a national crime. Our hopes are too high, our future too bright, our manifest destiny too great, for us at this date by our own action to place them in jeopardy.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not want this important debate to close without rising in my place in order to protest against the resolution moved by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards).

It occurs to me that, whenever referring to educational matters before this Parliament, every hon. member should be actuated by that sincerity which every Canadian should possess who respects the constitution and is anxious about the progress which has been achieved in educational matters throughout the provinces.
I oppose the resolution moved by the hon. gentleman, on two grounds.
The school system based upon a federal bureau of education is unconstitutional, and further more it involves a useless overlapping of work. First, that educational system is unconstitutional. The hon. member for Frontenac-if I may so sum up his view, told us: there will be introduced into the federal sphere an educational system, to the end that a common patriotic ideal may 'be instilled in the minds of our younger generation. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am doing no injustice to the gentleman in placing on such high ground the debate liaised by his resolution. On the other hand, the constitution of the country tells us that the. provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over matters of education within their boundaries, and in order to achieve that result and effectively control education, they have the power of enforcing their own. ideal, that is to say, the various provinces are given by the constitution control over educational matters, in accordance with their respective ideals.
Undoubtedly, what the hon. gentleman is aiming at, is to introduce a system which would be inconsistent and conflicting with a state of thing that is prevailing beyond any question throughout the country. Therefore, the educational system that he wants to establish is unconstitutional and that is why I view it with fear and alarm. Should he tell us: I am going to ask for an amendment to the constitution in order to enable us to introduce that system, I would still say: Hands off! Do not interfere with the constitution. In a similar sphere, among the most important and sacred duties which devolve upon the provinces, education is certainly to be found. We have already made so many attempts against the -constitution of this country, and that in so many ways and under so many pretences, that it is high time we did discountenance all such attacks against the spirit of the constitution.
Furthermore, I say that such an educational system as advocated by the hon. member for Frontenac is a useless duplicating of work.
]Mr. Fortier. [
In order to bring about educational progress, there must of necessity exist a public organization and it is of the highest importance that such an organization be headed by experienced educationalists, by competent men, devoted to the cause of education, and I submit that we already have such a mechanism, making for the progress of education. In fact, each province possesses its own department of education, while the ability and devotedness ,of its higher officials are duly appreciated, commended and applauded by everybody. Now, does the hon. member for Frontenac aim at creating, in the federal sphere, a bureau under the control of re-educationialists more competent and more devoted to the cause of education than are the men who are doing that work in each province? I cannot bring myself to believe it, as it would be an insult and a reflection cast upon all the leading educationalists throughout the Dominion. Does the hon. gentleman believe that the officials of this central bureau of education would better discharge their duties than the officials of the provincial departments are now doing? I feel reluctant to believe it, the more extensive is the business carried on in a department, the harder it is (for the officials to settle the affairs, and. it goes without saying that there would be a greater congestion in a federal bureau of education than there would be in the provincial departments. Therefore, seeing that these provincial departments answer the purpose very well, it follows that a federal bureau would he a useless duplicating of work, and should even say, a harmful mechanism.
In law-making, everything superfluous should be eliminated. Therefore it is idle for us to enact laws which admittedly will prove superfluous or inefficient. We should bend our efforts towards enacting really progressive and wise laws.
Now, I shall content myself with, making reference to another matter that is essentially involved in the hon. gentleman's proposition and that is in connection with the ideal which the hon. member for Frontenac dreams of instilling in the minds of the children of this country.
What is the school ideal advocated by the honourable member for Frontenac? I easily fancy what it is, and I am obliged to solemly declare that, in my estimation^ if the brains of the children of this country were moulded on such an ideal, it would be a misfortune for the whole Dominion. It

seems to me, moreover, that th:-s resolution is submitted to Parliament at a most inopportune time. Such a public rebuke to the devoted servants of the school in every province of the Dominion in spite of the federal constitution and of the progress realized, is most untimely at this very hour when the progress achieved by every province in the sphere of education is admitted on all sides; when we see, with such a great satisfaction and I would even say with such a jealous pride, the forward .movement of education in all the provinces and more especially in the province of Quebec; when we see, as we do to-day, a whole people in the act of offering a tribute of public admiration and of gratitude to the pioneer of popular education who was Marguerite Bourgeois, and to her beneficdent and incomparable 'Congregation.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, during the not inconsiderable number of years that I have had the honour of being a colleague of my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in this House I have admired the assiduity and the hard work which he puts into his duties; and I am bound to say that I think he has done a national service to-day by the speech in which he introduced the proposal of his resolution. Nobody could find the slightest fault with the spirit of his speech; it was couched from end to end in tolerant language and was characterized by a moderate tone; and certainly no one could find the slightest fault with the object which he clearly told us he had in view, that of promoting the national unity of Canada. I apprehend that that is an object that ought to be dear to the heart of every Canadian. There is no getting away from the fact that, young as we are in history as a country, we suffer a very great deal from what I venture to define as narrow provincialism, and the promotion of national unity as the object of any hon. member of this House in supporting any proposition is surely a duty which might well devolve upon this, the national Parliament of Canada.
Now, with regard to the merits of the proposal which the hon. member has brought before the House, I am bound to say that on broad and general grounds I find myself in agreement with it. It was to be expected, of course, that the constitutional question would at once be raised. It was raised by my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Boland) and more emphatically and more exclusively by my hon. friend from East Quebec (Mr. Lapointe). No one in
this House has greater admiration for the qualities of my hon. friend from East Quebec than I have. I have frequently had occasion to admire his logic. But on this question of constitutionality, Mr. Speaker,
I am bound to say that my hon. friend's logic halted considerably in the short address which he made to us to-night. When it was a question of carrying the proposal of my hon. friend's resolution, he said: I stand upon the constitution of the country; that constitution is to be found in the British North America Act; there I stand, within the four corners of that Act, and nothing can move me along the lines of any sympathy whatsoever with the resolution of my hon. friend from Frontenac. But in the same breath he said, what w'e all know: That almost from the moment of Confederation when it suited other purposes of hon. gentlemen in various parties in this House, they have without a moment's hesitation driven a carriage and pair through the constitution. He told us in so many words that there were certain interferences with the constitution that he would at once accede to. He said he did not propose to be going forever across the Atlantic to get the permission of the Imperial Parliament to superannuate a judge. With that point of view I am in absolute sympathy. But if that be good practice in the matter of the superannuation of a judge, then I turn to my hon. friend from East Quebec, who, I am sorry to note, is absent from his seat for the moment, with the question which he put to the member for Frontenac: If you are going to interfere with the constitution on your lines, where are you going to stop? I think 1 am quite logical when I turn to my hon. friend from East Quebec and say that this question comes very well to him. My hon. friend's logic, therefore, halted very considerably.
On the general question of the British North America Act, T apprehend that that Act, passed as it was by the Imperial Parliament, including the House of Lords, of fifty years ago-who were no wiser than they should have been, lords though they were-I apprehend that that Act will not remain as the sole guide of Canadians for all time.
I venture that prophecy. As a matter of fact, history bears me out. I repeat that we have again and again driven a carriage and pair through the British North America Act; and I agree with the general and broad proposition of my hon. friend from East Quebec when he says that this country will

in time make its own constitution. That is good Canadian nationality, and it does not interfere with my being a good Imperialist, as I understand Imperialism, of a sane and moderate order.
I cannot see how any reasonable hon. gentleman in this House can take very much exception to the objects of the bureau as my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) defined them. It is true he did not go into any great detail as to what would be the functions of the board which in his resolution he proposes to establish. But he did mention some things. He said that it might be possible for such a board to collect information for the purpose of instructing the inhabitants of the various provinces of Canada with regard to the work of the different educational institutions in those provinces. What possible exception could there be to a board for collecting information? How could that possibly interfere with the rights of the provinces, or make for anything but the better instruction of our citizens throughout the whole of this wide Dominion in what is going on in the matter of education in the various parts of the country? How could it do anything but make for what, my hon. friend says is its object, the promotion of national unity, by perfectly innocent, harmless and broad courses of procedure? I can understand how a board such as this could be extremely useful if it were able to put out tentative proposals by way of suggestion along certain common, broad grounds of education.
I must confess that I myself come under my hon. friend's condemnation implied in the question he asked as to how many of us in any one province know what is going on in the matter of education in any other province. I come distinctly under his lash, and I must say that for me it was an extremely tolerant lash he applied. My hon. friend in nine-tenths of the time he debates in this House is a very effective debater who uses the best possible weapons. On occasion, however, during the other tenth of his time, he can use weapons which I should not like to characterize. Fortunately to-day he made what, to my mind, was a wholly admirable speech because he, for the time being forgot one-tenth of himself. I repeat that in the objects of the board as he defined them I could find no objection whatsoever; and I say on my own account that this board could do very good work by way of suggestion along certain lines of common education
What kind of history is taught in the various provinces? If we are to become a [Mr. M. Clark.! .
great nation, and we shall; we are a great nation now, and we shall become a vastly greater one-'we must remember, in Quebec, or in Ontario, or in the West, that we are still infants nationally. My hon. friend from East Quebec, whom I am glad now to see in his place, said that there are different races and creeds in Canada. Well, we are all painfully aware of that fact. We are painfully aware of the fact that there are different races and creeds in the British -Isles; they scrap a good deal over there in regard to matters that divide us in this country. Of course we have different races and creeds in Canada. Does mv hon. friend think that the exact degree of approach between the races and creeds in Canada has been reached for all time at the present moment? Surely not. Why, the history of France and the history of Britain, show that in each of these countries the nation was compounded originally, hundreds and hundreds of years ago, of men who differed as much in race and creed as the various peoples who compose Canada do to-day. And the same is true of every great nation in Europe. But I find that:
-through the ages one increasing purpose runs,
And the thoughts of men are widened with the process of the suns.
And if I wanted for a moment to assume the role of prophet, I am just as confident as I can be that, as revealed in the histories of these nations, the process of time will merge the races in this country to a far greater degree than they are merged at the present time, that creeds will modify and, as I say, our thoughts will "widen with the process of the suns."
My hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) made a very clean-cut distinction between education and what he called "instruction."
I am not so sure that he was sound in the position he took on that subject. He defined instruction as the mere imparting of information to the mind of man, while he defined education as the development of the qualities of the heart. Well, I am quite sure that in his language he was not physiologically accurate. The heart is a hollow muscle whose duty it is to take the blood through the various parts of the corporeal frame of man; and the qualities of the heart, as he used the word, are to my way of thinking, equally with the qualities of intellect, the constituent parts of the mind.
I apprehend that in his teaching he minimized the importance of the influence of instruction upon the moral nature as well as the intellectual nature of the child growing into the man. I am old enough

to remember when the first compulsory education Act w-as instroduced in Great Britain, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of this House, that the statistics as to juvenile crime in Britain as a result of that Act were perfectly amazing in their nature. The effect of the education of children along the lines of secular instruction, and the storage of the mind, combined, of course, with the control which every child undergoes when it attends school, produced a tremendous diminution in the juvenile crime in the Old Country. So that I do not quite go the length of my hon. friend in his distinction between instruction and education, between the qualities of mind and the qualities of heart. I should like to guard myself at this point against any possible misunderstanding by saying that all the hon. member said about the importance of the development of the moral nature, all that he said about the importance of the qualities of heart, the instilling of religion as opposed to the mere teaching of intellect, had my fullest and warmest approbation; and there is no man in this House who does not believe, with all the firmness of conviction that is possible to a man, in the great work which is being done in this country at the present time for stabilizing the opinion and conduct of the people in the disturbed condition of the world by the religious education that is given in the province of Quebec. But my hon. friend from Frontenac expressly guarded himself against any expression upon that point. He was most emphatic in his declaration that he did not want to interfere in any degree whatsoever with provincial rights. But he expressed the belief that this board might be useful along these various lines. Why should it not be possible by way of suggestion to give us some common ground of history that might be taught in all the provinces of Canada? What possible harm could come from that? I remember well that in an address Mr. Morley gave, when he was quite a young man, to the Institute of Education in Birmingham, on popular culture, he made an eloquent plea for the study of universal history. He said he was rather amazed in a recent visit to America to find that the people of that great country seemed to date history from the year 1776, and he added that there were some important happenings in the world before that date. I think we would all agree with the statement of that philosophic educationalist and statesman who is still left as one of the great ornaments of the British Empire. Yet I would say, sir, that there were important happenings in
this world before the year '67, and that there are lines of instruction that might be suggested for every province in Canada, which would not interfere with provincial rights, that would see to it that every child in every province would get at least these' fundamentals and that in that way he was being trained up to be a good citizen not of a province but of a country, or, for that matter, not of a country but of an empire and not of an empire but of a world.
I do not know that it would be impossible to make suggestions even along the lines of a common education in morals or in reli-. gion if you like. Why should not such a suggestion to every province of the Dominion take the form that it would be a good thing for every child growing up in Canada to know that Queen Victoria, wdien asked what was the source of England's greatness, said it was the Bible; or that Thomas Carlyle, when he addressed the students as rector of Glasgow University, said that no country that divorced itself from belief in a Divine Being ever attained or, at any rate retained, greatness? Why should it not be possible for every child that grew up in Canada to be taught that Emerson said that the great ages of the world have been the ages of belief? I would suggest to hon. gentlemen that along all these lines it would be quite possible for a bureau, such as my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) proposes, to throw out suggestions that would be useful in every province in the Dominion.
For these reasons, if there were nothing but, the constitutional question, I should, if this mbtion went to a division, vote unhesitatingly with the hon. member for Frontenac. I did not notice that the hon. member for East Quebec (Mr. Lapointe) or the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) were at all successful in dealing with the precedent of the United States. I labour under the difficulty of not knowing the exact educational status of the United States. I do not know how far the rights of the state in the United States are similar in matters of education to the rights of the province in this country, but I should rather think that the hon. member for Frontenac could possibly give us some information on that question indicating that education in the United States is as much a state prerogative as education in a province is a provincial prerogative in Canada. If that be so-and T notice that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards-nods his approval-then surely we ought to give consideration to the fact by looking at this question on its merits, remembering that such a bureau as is proposed has actually

existed in the United States for fifty years, has existed without infringing state rights and on the whole has made for national unity. On that point I must- say that I think my hon. friend's argument was entirely sound and strong.
There is a further word, Sir, that I want to say-a word which I have no doubt the right hon. the leader of the House (Sir George Foster) will say when his time to speak-if he does speak on this subject-arrives; there is the financial question before Canada at the present time as well as the constitutional question. As some hon. gentlemen have indicated this proposition, if it [DOT] were pushed in some quarters, would evidently lead to strong ebullitions of religious and racial prejudices. I cannot say that I was very much impressed with my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) who made the speech of a young man. If, of course, my hon. friend from Frontenac had it in his mind to create a board which would produce a large number of unmarried mothers of thirteen years of age and would storm the Eock of Ages, I should be very strongly opposed to the board; but from the very mild and almost lamblike speech of the hon. member for Frontenac I did not really gather that he had any such object in view. However, I repeat, the very fact that such an extract should be read in this House indicates that the pushing of this question at this time might give us an exhibition of race narrowness and creed intolerance that would not come from Ontario. The best evidence of it is to be found in the speech and the quotations that it contained.
I return however to the financial question. I apprehend the Government has not many millions that it is looking for avenues to shoot them into at the present moment. I take it that the Government have more holes for dollars than they have dollars for holes; and as the question, if pushed unduly, and if money were spent on this movement at this time, would give rise to a great deal of factious contention, I think that probably for the moment my hon. friend has served an excellent purpose by raising what has been one of the most interesting discussions that I have ever listened to on a private member's day in this House. We have all got something to think about, we have all learned something in the debate, and it may be wise for the hon. gentleman not to press his resolution at this time. But if it Is pressed as being something more than an academic motion moved on a private member's day, for the reasons

that I have stated I shall vote with the hon. member for Frontenac.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, on the 7th Miay last year there was introduced into the Senate this resolution:
That there should toe established in Canada a National Free Compulsory School System.
That resolution was debated, and withdrawn after ample evidence had been given that the honourable gentlemen of the Senate were not in favour of the proposal. Seven days later, on the 14th of May, my hon. friend from Frontenac, speaking to a resolution which had been placed by him on the Order Paper, made the following observations in a motion to go into Committee of Supply:
Early in the session I placed the following resolution on the Order Paper:
" That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the British North America Act should be amended so as to secure the establishment of a non-sectarian school system throughout the Dominion of Canada."
A careful perusal of the hon. gentleman's speech on that occasion leads one to the conclusion that he, at least at that time, would have been willing to have the British North America Act amended so as to bring about his desire for national schools.


John Wesley Edwards: May I tell my hon.
friend?-I am still willing.


James Alexander Robb: I notice that my hon. friend is still firm in the belief, in presenting his speech to-day, he was very careful more than once to say that he had no desire to infringe upon provincial rights. I am sure we all agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman in his desire for national unity and in his wish not to interfere with provincial rights. I prefer, however, to take the evidence contained in his speech rather than the statement he has just made, because my hon. friend must acknowledge that if he follows out the details, as enunciated in his resolution of last year, his policy will involve an interfer-ance with provincial rights.


John Wesley Edwards: May I point out to
my hon. friend that my resolution of last year is not on all fours with the present resolution, and has nothing whatever to do with it. I made that perfectly clear.
I was just emphatic in regard to this resolution as I was last year in regard to the other-they are along entirely different lines.


James Alexander Robb: Well my hon. friend does
not seem to be quite clear as to his own position. However, I am not going to pursue that feature of the question. I have not had the advantage of a legal training, and I am not going to discuss the constitutional feature which is involved in this debate. In the argument presented by my hon. friend he drew particular attention to the conditions in the United States. I notice that he did not go to Great Britain for a precedent. In 1909, my hon. friend who is now the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) introduced into Parliament a resolution in favour of technical education which led to a very interesting and instructive debate. As a result of that debate the Minister of Labour of that day-my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) who is now the leader on this side-communicated with the Prime Ministers of the different pr; [DOT] vinces of Canada asking if they had any objection to the Federal Government sending a commission to study the question of technical education. In the report of the commission, appointed at that time, hon. gentlemen will find the replies of the premiers of the nine Canadian provinces. Three of those prime ministers most emphatically, but courteously, intimated to the then Minister of Labour that they had no objection whatever to the proposal providing it did not interefere with provincial rights. One of the three prime ministers at that time who was careful to state that he stood for provincial rights in the matter was the Prime Minister of Ontario, the late Sir James Whitney. Another prime minister who was also careful to state the position of his Government upon that question was the Prime Minister of Manitoba, Sir Rodmand Roblin. The third Prime Minister was Sir Lomer Gouin, then and now the Premier of the province of Quebec. So that the prime ministers of three of the great provinces of this Dominion carefully placed before the Federal Government at that time their position as regards the matter of education. But there is another authority of more recent date whom we can quote to-day as being strong for provincial rights in respect to matters of education. Only a few days ago in this Chamber there was a debate in which the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) took part, and we find the hon. gentleman making use of these observations as reported on page 865 of Hansard:
The task of Canadianizing the foreign-born is fundamentally and solely a question of education. The provinces, under the Canadian Constitution, have jurisdiction in matters of education. Not only have they jurisdiction, hut their authority is exclusive on that subject-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must remind the hon. gentleman that he is not in order in quoting from a previous debate in the same session.


James Alexander Robb: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Now let us follow the commission on technical education, of which Dr. James W. Robertson was the Chairman. Hon. gentlemen who are interested in matters of education could not do better than carefully study the most interesting and instructive report published by that commission. I am only going to deal with a few sentences from it, but I wish more particularly to point out, especially to my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) this fact. We find in that report the statement-made that England and Scotland had a common school department for elementary education in 1837; but in 1866, to meet the desire of the Scottish people to improve the educational system of Scotland, that country separted from England in this matter and received her grant from the Exchequer for Scottish education. So it was with Ireland. Ireland was not satisfied to be dictated to from London as to her system of education, and so to-day they have in the British Isles a system of education for England and Wales-and Wales has its owrn separate department-a system for Scotland, and a system for Ireland. Now what was the condition at the time when the British Isles had one system of education? I have under my hand an editorial from the St. Johns News, and by the way that paper is a loyal and faithful supporter of the old Conservative party, and has been for many years. If I am not mistaken, it is controlled by the hon. member for St. Antoine division of Montreal Sir Herbert Ames). I find in the editorial referred to this statement:
Years ago many illiterates came to Canada from rural England, but the percentage is very small to-day. In 1843, over 40 per cent of the men and women who were married in England that year had to sign the parish registers with a cross. In 1907 the percentage had fallen to less than 2 per cent.
So we see that under that central system eduoation is very defective in the British Isles, but when the system was decentralized, so that England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales each had its own separate system, education improved by leaps and bounds until to-day their systems are excellent. I argue from this experience that we will be better advised to leave well

enough alone and continue a system which, I grant you, is possibly not altogether satisfactory to the people of the whole Dominion, but it will be a bad thing for all the provinces when we are absolutely satisfied with our educational systems.
I submit that any improvement we may find desirable can be brought about better by local initiative than by a central authority here in Ottawa, I ask the people of British Columbia, for instance, would they be better satisfied with the administration of their schools from Ottawa instead of from Victoria? If there were abuses to be remedied, could the remedy be applied easier from Ottawa than from Victoria? I ask the people of Alberta, could they handle their educational problems better from Ottawa than from Edmonton? And so with the. people of Nova Scotia-would they be better satisfied if their excellent system of education was scrapped and they were dictated to by Ottawa in their school affairs?
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, having this in mind, I join in the appeal of my hon. friend from Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) to my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) who is so desirous of promoting national unity, to withdraw this resolution, which at this time can do no good and, in my judgment, may do some harm.


Et. Hon. Sir GEOEGE FOSTEE (Acting Prime Minister):: I do not rise, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debating at any length the question which has been discussed in a very temperate and, I think, in many respects a very able way. I rise, because the resolution as worded is an instruction for immediate activity on the part of the Government, involving both organization and expense, and I want to say a word or two upon that side of the question. But before doing so I might be permitted to say something with reference to the general trend of the discussion. I think we will all agree that the final word on educational systems has not yet been spoken. I think it is fair to say that there is probably a tenser interest and a more persistent and intensive inquiry into past systems of education and into the results that have come from them than probably at any other period in the history of our country, and maybe I am right in extending that to the history of other countries as w'ell. We have not reached finality in regard to system, theory, or practice. I think we are making great progress towards that end and I think we ought to be well satisfied in a way with past progress, with-
IMi, Robb.]
out thereby becoming indifferent as to progressive methods for the betterment of present practice, because betterment is always possible and we must always strive for it, or we will become indifferent, lax, and ineffective in our educational methods and attainments.
I listened carefully to the discussion initiated by my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), and I really failed to discover any attack on provincial rights. I really did understand all through the discussion as he conducted it and as it was continued by most of the other speakers, that there was a sedulous desire to avoid interference with provincial rights, and rather a seeking to know whether or not, keeping provincial rights intact, a possible betterment might not result from the establishment of some agency which would be consultative and co-operative in its nature, making for uniformity where it would be for the benefit of the nation, and preventing duplication where it would be against the general educational advancement of the whole country. I took that to be the spirit of the initiator of the discussion this afternoon.
I am not sure whether the establishment of such an agency w'hich, proceeding from the provinces themselves, in that general line of progress by evolution, by consultation, by union meetings of educational authorities from all the provinces, by a gradual throwing into a general treasury of thought and of exchange the best experience of every province in its educational system, might not lead to the evolution of improved educational systems in ail the provinces. It is not impossible that that oould be brought about from above, and that we could form a bureau in connection with the federal authority which would do a lot of that informative and cooperative work towards uniformity and betterment.
There is room for two different schools of thought, and each school may be absolutely honest and straightforward in its convictions and in the way it puts those convictions before the other. We must not quarrel because we may have two schools of opinion. There ought to be such a spirit in this forum that any man can honestly and straightforwardly express his opinions for the benefit and advancement, of the country without being charged or taunted with making mischief or desiring to usurp provincial rights. We cannot be the deliberative forum we ought to be unless we have charity, generosity, and good sense

enough to grant to every one the statement of his opinions as well as the possession of his convictions. And so, although I may not agree altogether with much that was said, for instance, by my hpn. friend from Quebec, yet those are his convictions: with some of his views I did agree, and I take what is suggestive and helpful to me; and he may get something helpful from me or from another member who expresses a different view. Again I put my plea forward, -do not let us see, in what is honestly striven for and spoken, attacks either on provincial systems of education or on provincial rights in any other respect.
Now, surely there are respects in which there is no difference between the educationalist from Quebec and the educationalist from Nova Scotia and the educationalist from any other of our provinces. So that a bureau established on right lines, in accordance with the higher general ideas of educational thought among the provinces, a bureau of help and a suggestion and information, might be a great aid in the educational progress and development of the country.
There are difficulties in the way. The first would be the question: what amount of 'authority shall that bureau have? It must not be a fancy 'thing; if you go to the expense and trouble of organizing it you want to have a thing which is virile, a thing which had strength. If it is simply a name and a label, we are far better without it, because it would do no good and might do a great deal of mischief. So that if such a bureau is to be effective, it must have well-defined duties. In defining those duties great care would be required. I do not think it is possible to define them without close consultation with the educational authorities of the different provinces, so that there would be common consent with regard to what those duties should be. If the proposal were that the bureau should act in a directive capacity as regards education in the different provinces, it would not be workable. It would not be accepted by the provinces now, nor do 1 know when it would be. Clearly, therefore, some limits would have to be recog nized in the creation of any such organization. In the long years of the past we have constantly come closer together in all the higher and greater lines of our thought and action, and I believe that in the future we shall continue to grow closer together, to have more in common, to work collectively and co-operatively even to a greater extent than we have worked in the past. So
it may be that after careful thought we may be able to get that help, either coming from this federal body, or, as I would rather see it come, as the evolution of a gradual progress and development in educational matters in the different provinces. It would be a benefit to have something which would make for uniformity in the great spiritual, moral and intellectual lines followed by our educational systems. We need stimulus and interest. Prince Edward Island is but a small flick in the ocean. It has a hundred thousand people; it has its educational system. But do you mean to say that a small province like that would not benefit so far as its educational system is concerned through the inspiration of other and larger systems of education in the other provinces? So with all the provinces. I do not think we have got to the last word in the matter of educational organization in any of the provinces; noi have we got to the last word in out educational system in this country as a whole. But we shall come to it by gradual processes, whether from the outside towards the centre, or from the centre towards the outside. And we must be a bit patient. We have had a fair discussion of the subject to-day. Others than those who spoke in favour of the resolution this afternoon feel that more ought to be done than has been done with reference to our general educational system, arid who are looking to some such method as has been suggested to bring about co-relation and co-operation in our general life of uplift, intellectual and moral.
Having thus in a brotherly way, in an honest and temperate way, interchanged oui views on this matter, we may allow these things to be further discussed and thought over. Every .year we shall probably hear more about this education ques-
10 p.m. tion. There are grades of education. The idea of education which was in the minds of the fathers of Confederation was probably different from that which prevails now. The idea of education broadens. To-day there is not much difference of opinion along certain lines of intellectual and moral uplift, and ias to the way these may be carried on through the federal authority without impinging in the least upon the rights of the provinces. But what I particularly desire to say is that if this resolution passes to-night it is a direction that we shall do something which is at the present moment indefinite. However well the mover of the resolution has explained What he meant by it, the pro-



posal is-I was going to say, .without form and void; at least it is indefinite. Who is to interpret what the proposed body shall be? What is it that is to be formed? On this indefinite basis we can hardly receive a direct instruction to set up an organization and to put something into force. Further, I should not like to see anything of this kind done unless it is well organized, well thought out, is strong and capable of bringing to effect the purpose for which it was intended. That requires money; that requires financial assistance, and financial assistance is to be looked at very carefully by a government which is administering the affairs of the country under the peculiar conditions which exist to-day. So that on both those counts which I have mentioned, and need not mention again, I would deprecate that a direct instruction should be given to the .Government to carry out, with all the organization and financial backing which it implies a resolution suc'h as my hon. friend has moved.
I am free to say that I am not sorry that this discussion has taken place in this Parliament. T think it is infinitely better than a discussion the whole purpose of which is for one of us to try and rag another one of us, for one side of the House to have a heated party discussion with the other side. It is a kind of a cooler atmosphere we get into if we can take a resolution, somewhat academic but which has real substance in it, and discuss it as men and gentlemen on both sides of the House and as representatives of the people's needs end requirements.
My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has moved his resolution, and has supported it and we have had a certain discussion upon it. I am not his dictator, and I am not going to say to him whether I think he ought to withdraw it or not. But I do wish to say to him that the Government does not like to take an instruction, so positive as this, in the words of his resolution at this time. He might consider it better to withdraw his resolution, or it might be disposed of in some other way. I congratulate him for my part, and I have no disposition to do otherwise, upon provoking, or rather leading up to a discussion which I think will have no bad results, and which has certainly done something with reference to opening up questions which will be more discussed both in and out of this House before they are' less discussed.


Mr. A. L. DAVIDSON (Digby and Annapolis):: Mr. Speaker, I .beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is there a seconder' for the motion?
Mr. EDWARDS': The right hon. Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) has pretty clearly intimated to me and to the members at least on this side of the House that should I decide to let this resolution go to a vote, supporters of the Government would be expected to vote it down. He said it might be disposed of by withdrawal or in some other way, and I suppose that that is what he meant by "some other way." I want to assure the Acting Prime Minister that so far as the voting down of my resolution is concerned, I would not have any hesitation in submitting it even if I were the only one to stand up and vote for it. The intimation that it was to be voted down would have no effect on me whatever.
The Acting Prime Minister has objected to this resolution from the standpoint of its indefiniteness. Now I was rather under the impression that the very fact of its indefiniteness would appeal to members of the Government. Why? .Because just three weeks ago to-day a resolution was moved in this House by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) in regard to the educating or Canadianizing of the foreign element in this country, and though that resolution was very indefinite it was accepted not only by the Government but by every member of this House, and agreed to unanimously. iSo it was good policy three weeks ago to move an indefinite resolution, which was accepted, but it is bad policy to-day to move a resolution which has in it elements of indefiniteness. At the beginning of my remarks this afternoon I called attention to the resolution which was moved by the hon. member for South Perth and adopted, and I pointed out that that resolution most distinctly stated that the national welfare of Canada made it imperative that appropriate measures should be taken by this Parliament to fit and prepare the alien in this country to exercise the functions of citizenship. There was a clear acknowledgment that he was not now fit to exercise these functions, and a clear acceptance of the indefinite proposition that "appropriate measures" should be taken. Yes, the House agreed, and the Government agreed, that these aliens are not as they should be. Yes, we agreed that "appropriate measures should be taken" to

educate and fit them to perform their duties as Canadian citizens, but there was no statement as to what those "appropriate measures" should be. The resolution was so beautifully indefinite that it could be readily accepted by the Government and by every lion, member of this House.
The proposition which I have submitted to the House for a Federal Bureau of Education leaves the door wide open. I might say in all frankness and candour that I did not expect the Government would be able to take hold of this matter after only a Cabinet consultation, for instance, and arrive at any proper conclusion as to what should be done. Therefore, I suggested as the first step to be taken by this Government that they should invite the several provinces to send educationalists to Ottawa to consult witn the Government and devise or suggest a mode of procedure by which this Bureau of Education might be inaugurated.
We have, however, had a pretty definite admission from hon. gentlemen in this House this afternoon that conditions in this country are not as they should be, that there is room for improvement, that something might be done along co-operative lines. I can read in those remarks of the Acting Prime Minister and of other hon. gentlemen who have spoken, that in the back of their heads they really believe in this principle of a bureau, whether you call it a Federal Bureau or not. They believe in the principle of having a Bureau of Education that will be a sort of clearing-house for the gathering and dissemination of ideas throughout the country.
Of course, we have an apprehension on the part of some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, and 1 wish for a moment to refer to some of the things that have been said by certain of these hon. gentlemen. I have no fault to find with the position taken by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland)-. While he indicated that he had some apprehension of an invasion of provincial rights if this bureau were established, yet in presenting his remarks his language, as always, was courteous and gentlemanly.
But I suppose I could not very well expect the example set by the hon. member for Beauce to be followed by all those who spoke on the other side. I was struck with this fact, as I am sure you must have been, Mr. Speaker, if you followed the discussion -and hon. gentlemen who have had the advantage of legal training would of course observe it more readily than a layman like
myself, although I could not help noticing it-that the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), expressed respect for my convictions while the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) said something to the same effect. They professed to give me credit for honesty of conviction. But *while these two gentlemen paraded their confidence in me and the honesty of my convictions, they were the only two who proceeded in the course of their remarks to charge me with political crookedness in the introduction of this resolution. They both said that I had made a frontal attack last year in the resolution I introduced on that occasion, and that I was coming back by a flank attack in introducing this resolution to-day. The hon. member for Quebec South particularly said that I was assailing, or at least endeavouring to get at, the province of Quebec in this resolution. He stated that I had travelled over the prairies in order to arrive at Quebec and, by a flank movement, to have a chance of attacking that province; and the hon. member for Quebec East, referring to the resolution which I moved last year, showed the sincerity of the "confidence" which he said he had in the honesty of my convictions by at once indicating his suspicion of my motives in the previous resolution and that which I moved this afternoon. He -asked: Why should he come back with a resolution which he knows cannot be accepted-what purpose has the hon. gentleman to serve? Well, may I ask the hon. member for Quebec East a similar question? May I ask that hon. gentleman what purpose he had to serve when, in the session of 1916, when this country was at war, and was putting forth every conceivable effort to recruit men from all parts of the Dominion, that hon. gentleman rose in his place in this House, and moved his bi-lingual resolution? What object did he hope to serve by that? What was his purpose in introducing that resolution?
-Mr. LAPOINTE: To bring peace and harmony into the country.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, to bring peace and harmony into the country. But the hon. gentleman had mighty peculiar methods of bringing about that end. While that resolution was being discussed in the House on that occasion the then leader of the Opposition, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, stated, in speaking on the matter, that he knew it wmuld bring just the opposite to harmony, namely, discord and disunity.


Ernest Lapointe: Never, never.


John Wesley Edwards: I beg to contradict my hon. friend. The right hon. gentleman did make the statement I ascribe to him.


Ernest Lapointe: He never did.
Mr: EDWARDS: He said we had always had a certain amount of discord and disunity, and we always would have. Now, my hon. friend attacks my motive in introducing this resolution. But I want to tell him that it comes with very poor grace from all those who sit to your left to charge me with insincerity or any other motive than that which appears on the face of the resolution. And it comes with less grace from the hon. member for Quebec East to impute ulterior motives to me, in view of the fact that the hon. gentleman moved a resolution in this House which he knew could have but one effect, and that was to. drive further apart the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The hon. member for Quebec East, the hon. member for Quebec South, and the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb), all read into this resolution of mine what is not in it at all, and charge me with an attempt to make a flank attack on Quebec and its educational institutions. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) was good enough to say this evening that he had observed with pleasure the fact that I suppressed a part of myself in the course of my remarks. Let me say that it is very difficult for any man to maintain moderation and that tone which we should like to see prevail in debate in this House when he is followed by gentlemen who accuse him as I have been accused in this House to-day. 1 want to take this opportunity here and now to tell the hon. gentleman from Quebec East, who moved his bi-lingual resolution which meant nothing but discord and the very opposite of unity; the hon. member for Quebec South; who read a carefully prepared essay written under a wrong conception of what I was going to say when I introduced my resolution; the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon, and any other hon. gentleman from Quebec, that if you study the political history of this country from Confederation down to this very year, you will find that the only province in Confederation, from the year 1867 to this moment, that has ever interfered or presumed to interfere with the purely provincial rights of any other province, is the province of Quebec. There is not a single province in Confederation with which the province of Quebec, and members from that province, have not on the floor of the House, and throughout the country, endeavoured to interfere in their purely pro-

vincial matters. When it suits their purpose they throw to the four winds of heaven constitution and all, hut they can preach constitution, British North America Act, Section 93, and everything else, when they desire to put a wrong construction upon this motion which I present. I could give instance after instance where Quebec has interfered in matters coming solely under the constitution of Ontario. I can give instances where it has interfered with matters relating solely to the province of Manitoba, and every other province; and there is not a single instance that can be referred to where any of the other provinces since Confederation has at any time interfered with any matters coming under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. Yet these hon. gentlemen this afternoon, as they have done on many occasions when they desire to throw dust in the eyes of the public, come forward with an air of righteous indignation as if the rights of the province of Quebec were being infringed. There has been no attempt in this resolution to infringe the rights of any province. What is the sense of quoting the British North America Act, and Section 93 of that Act, so far as this resolution is concerned? Do hon. gentlemen suppose that I have not read that Act as well as they? Do they suppose that they are giving special information when they quote Section 93?
Mr. AROHAMiBATJLT: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: I would not be surprised if my hon. friend thought he was, because he has a much higher opinion of himself than any one else holds of him. Section 93 refers to the making of law; will any one show me where in this resolution, which asks for the appointment of a Federal Bureau of Education, there is any undertaking, from first to last, to make laws in any shape or form? In what respect has this section any relevancy to the establishment of. a Federal Bureau? It is not proposed in any sense to interfere in the slightest degree with any right of any province. We could not interfere with any provincial right without going to the trouble of having our constitution changed. Do you suggest for one moment in a country of the extent of Canada the feasibility of centralizing education here at Ottawa? It is preposterous; it is utterly ridiculous. Nobody has suggested that. Nothing could have been further from my thoughts in the remarks that I have made than to suggest anything of the kind.
What was the attitude assumed by hon. gentlemen on the other side who have

spoken? These hon. gentlemen come here and assume to speak for the province of Quebec. I must take it that they are speaking for the province of Quebec. What is the attitude then of the province of <Quebee if these gentlemen are the mouthpiece for that province? We may have a 'Federal Bureau "which will act as a clearing house or, to use the words of the right hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir (George Foster), a treasury, into which we .can place all ideas gathered in every province of the Dominion or in every civilized country of the world, and you can, if you choose, come to that treasury, in which we have accumulated the best ideas of the civilized countries of the world along educational lines, and take what you want; you may dip into that treasury, you may help yourself if you wish to do so; or if you wish you may leave it alone. What is the attitude of hon. gentlemen, what is the attitude of the province of Quebec, that they are here as the mouthpiece for?


Mr. GAUVREAU:: They are not ashamed of it.


John Wesley Edwards: I would have no quarrel with my hon. friends if they took this position: You may form such a treasury as that, no harm can come to any part of Canada from accumulating these ideas, but we refuse to dip into the treasury or to help ourselves to these ideas. That would be all right, but that is not the position that these hon. gentlemen take. The position they take is: We refuse to allow those provinces who wish to dip into that treasury to do so. That is the attitude of the province of Quebec and that has been the attitude of that province from Confederation down to the present time- -not only refusing to take what they want when they have a right to do it, but refusing to allow other provinces to exercise their functions in provincial and educational matters when they claimed the right to do it.
What harm could you do in a bureau established at Ottawa gathering information in regard to the school systems in the various provinces and leaving that information in a position where any province wishing to avail "itself of those accumulated ideas could do so? There is no compulsion; no province has to accept any one of these ideas unless it wants to. That has been the attitude of the United States ever since the Federal Bureau was established in that country fifty-two or fifty-three years ago. What has resulted? They have formed a bureau that has collected 90
daj,a from all over the United States and from every civilized country in regard to their educational systems. That Federal .Bureau at different times has made suggestions. It has been advisory, just as this would be advisory. Is it better to use the word "suggestive" instead of "advisory." I do not know that there is very much difference, but they have at various times made recommendations of changes which they thought it would be beneficial to make in the law of this or that state in order to improve their educational system. What happened? That was not an infringement of state rights. The states, through their educational authorities and their legislatures, decide whether the idea, or recommendation, or suggestion is a good one. If they decide it is not a good one they do not aceept it. The power to accept or reject rests entirely with the state. In *many cases suggestions or recommendations have been adopted and crystallized into legislation. That is the proposition in so far as a Federal Bureau is concerned, and it is a proposition which leaves every province absolutely free to exercise its wisdom in regard to any matter which is suggested as to whether or not it would be incorporated in the law, or whether they shall leave it alone.
How in the "world can you construe that by any possible twist of the imagination into an attack upon the rights of any province? How can yon interfere with the constitutional rights which the province has except by having that constitution changed? There is no proposal to do anything of the kind. The suggestion is made that this bureau would make a change in the law. What power would it have to make a change in the law? None whatever; its only power would be to gather information, to have, that information available for use by any person or any province that wanted to use it. If a province did not want to use it, it would not have to do so. Our friends across the way say: We will not use it and the rest of you shall not use it; if you make any attempt to accumulate the ideas which may be. valuable, which may have been found to be valuable in various parts of the world, if you make any attempt to consolidate and keep these together, we will oppose it and the charge which we will make against you is that you are attempting to drive the thin edge of the wedge into the constitution which gives to the province of Quebec its liberties. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my hon. friend? .from Quebec that if there is one province



out of the nine in Confederation which has little cause of complaint in regard to its rights and liberties, that province is Quebec. There has never been a disposition on the part of any province in the Confederation to deprive the province of Quebec at any time of any of the rights and privileges it enjoys under the constitution.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: They better not try.


John Wesley Edwards: They better not try, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gauvreau) says. Well, I do not know. How am I to take that? How is anybody to take that? My hon. friend does not look belligerent; he is smiling at this moment. Does he intend his remark as a threat? M&ybe he intended to give point to the remark made by one of 'his colleagues from that province some days ago that the province of Quebec was waiting for its "hour." T do not know whether that is what he had in rniftd or not. I may tell my hon. friend that there is no desire to infringe the rights of the province of Quebec or any other province. I wish we could get out of the minds of hon. gentlemen in the discussion of this matter the idea that some of them seem to have-and I cannot think they are all insincere; they really have the idea- that in some shape or form this Federal Bureau will infringe on the right of the provinces to control education. Once more let me say the idea is to follow that adopted by the United States fifty-three years ago. The idea as carried out in that country is to accumulate information not only from every state in the Union but from other eoun-~ tries-Canada, England, Germany, France, and every civilized country in the world. If you want information to-day in regard to the educational system prevailing in the province of Nova Scotia or any other province you have to write to the Bureau of Education in the city of Washington to get that information. That is the position in which we are to-day. Now it has not resulted in any harm on the other side of the line where it has been in operation for 53 yeais. No person has bf'**n hurt by it, but a great deal of benefit has accrued to that country front the adoption of a Bureau of Education there. All that I ask and all that this resolution asks, is that a similar bureau be established in Ottawa which would collect imonnation, collect data, accumulate all the knowledge that we can get on mattuis of education, and would hand that information out to whatever province wanted to

make use of it. To those who do not want to make use of it no harm is done; those who would like to utilize it can do so. It we could, as my hon. friend from Red Deer-very properly it seems to 'me-said, bring some uniformity into some of our systems along, for instance, the line of history, who is hurt by it? Suppose your bureau called together educationalists, and they came to the conclusion that such and such a history would be the best to use in this country, and they recommended its adoption. Our friends from Quebec say: "No, we prefer the history which we have already." Very good, the choice rests with them to refuse or not. But if they feel, or if their education authorities consider that their history is better than the one recommended, why should they step in and deprive Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, for example, from uniting on one line of history? Why should they do it? What object have they in so _doing? Who is going to he hurt by the adoption of such a plan?
If a child starts his education in the p-o-vince of Saskatchewan and goes down to the province of Manitoba and finds that the grade there is the same as it was m Saskatchewan, or goes to Ontario and finds that the grade there is the same as it was in Manitoba, who is hurt by that? At the present time, say, the child begins his education in. Saskatchewan. In a year, perhaps, his parents take him down to Manitoba. There they find he is in grade 3, we will say, and in the Manitoba school they declared: "Yes, we will accept you in grade 3 so far as writing is concerned, but you are not up to our standard in arithmetic, and you have got to go back." And so he goes into another grade because of this difference as between Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Or perhaps, the child goes down to Quebec, where it is found he is all right in arithmetic, but probably not in his writing, and he is shifted again. What harm would be done if the educationalists of the different provinces got together and considered the systems of grading in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario, and decided that so and so was the proper grading for arithmetic, for writing, and so forth? What harm would be done by such a procedure; who is hurt by it? I think it would be beneficial and would work to the best interests of the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up any more time in discussing this matter. I realize that there is no need of

pressing the resolution or asking hon. gentlemen to vote on it. I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, that in withdrawing the resolution, which I do with the consent of my seconder, I am doing so not because I was asked to do so by the member from Huntingdon, Quebec (Mr. Robb), because that hon. gentleman, and several other members opposite, if I am to judge by their speeches, indicated very clearly that there ought to be a Bureau of Education and instruction in this country and that it ought to be in Ottawa so that they could avail themselves of it, because they seem to be very poorly posted. I do respect, of course, the wishes of the Acting Prime Minister, and I might say, Sir, that I am influenced very strongly indeed in the conclusion I have come to by my hon. friend from Red Deer who-with his usual ability to see into a matter-appreciated apparently the object which I had in view in moving the resolution and honestly gave me credit for proper motives. I say that I am influenced very largely by his request, that he thinks under the circumstances it is better to withdraw the motion. Still, I confess to you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see just how many members there are in this House who feel that something should be done along this line. It may be, and doubtless is, true that at the present time the Government is being pressed for money for various things in this country, and that sacrifices have to be made. Nevertheless, I want to affirm-and I say it to the members of the Government as well as to members of the House generally-that the day is coming, and it is not very far away, when there will be a Federal Bureau of Education established in this country for the collection of information and its dissemination among those who wish to avail themselves of it. I am sorry to have taken up the time of the House as long as I have, but I feel very strongly on this matter. As one who has given a part of his life-indeed, some of the best years of his life-to the profession of teaching, I have devoted some attention to educational matters, and I firmly believe that the establishment of just such a bureau would not only be of great utility to all the provinces, and of great assistance to them in perfecting and improving their educational systems, but also that it would have a tendency to break down the barriers that exist between various provinces and bring them into closer union one with the other. I ask for cooperation, not compulsion, not anything that will infringe upon provincial rights;
the whole object of this resolution is the establishment of a bureau to co-operate and work with the provinces, with the one end in view of improving our education systems and of building up in this country a citizenship that would understand their responsibilities and their duties as Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw the resolution.
Motion withdrawn.
On the motion of Rt. Hon, Sir George Foster the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Tuesday, April 20, 1920.